Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS

British Transport Hotels

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Minister of Transport what estimate she has made of the net return on capital earned by British Transport hotels in each of the past three years.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Morris): :The Railways Board informs me that the return on capital in the years 1963, 1964 and 1965 was 10·5 per cent., 13·5 per cent. and 9·5 per cent. respectively. Figures for 1966 are not yet available.

Mr. Taylor: : Does the hon. Gentleman agree that these are relatively poor returns, especially as these book values are clearly out of date? Can he say what plans the railways have to improve the position and, in particular, what plans they have for opening new or closing old hotels?

Mr. Morris: These returns for 1965 which, I admit, are lower than those of previous years, are attributable to rising costs and difficult trading conditions affecting the hotel industry generally. I have no information about the extension of these hotels. If the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question about that, I will try to answer it

Oral Answers to Questions — Liner Trains

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Minister of Transport what progress she has made in her discussions with the National Union of Railwaymen regarding open access to liner-train terminals for

private road hauliers; and if she will make a statement.

The Minister of Transport (Mrs. Barbara Castle): Since I last answered Questions on this subject in the House, freightliner traffic has continued to increase and B.R.S. vehicles have started serving the London-Aberdeen route. The open terminals problem involves the road transport unions as well as the N.U.R., and I am continuing my efforts to find a solution.

Mr. Taylor: Would the right hon. Lady agree that it is impossible to get the full potential from this wonderful new service unless we have open access? Can she say what specific steps have been taken since 20th July when the Prime Minister said that he had indicated to all concerned his determination that liner-train services should go ahead on the basis of open terminals?

Mrs. Castle: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that this wonderful new service should be used to the full, not least in the interests of the railwaymen themselves. I share the Prime Minister's determination. I have had a series of negotiations with the unions involved, and I am confident that we shall find a solution if we handle this in the right way.

Mr. Tom McMillan: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the N.U.R.'s decision to open or not to open terminals will be made at this year's annual general meeting? If requested to attend that meeting and address the delegates, will my right hon. Friend ask to do so before the decision is made and not after the decision, as last year?

Mrs. Castle: I am only too happy to consider any invitations from the transport unions to attend their annual general meeting and to explain points in my policy to them. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is rather happier if one is allowed to speak before the relevant decision is taken.

Mr. Peter Walker: Would the right hon. Lady comment on the position of the licensing authorities which receive applications for vehicles other than those of British Railways although terminals remain closed to other vehicles which are available to carry goods to the terminals?

Mrs. Castle: Certainly not. The licensing authorities are independent authorities and it is not for me to comment on what decisions they reach in their wisdom.

Oral Answers to Questions — Underground Railway (Roehampton)

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Minister of Transport what requests she has received for capital expenditure sanction for the extension of the Underground Railway to Roehampton.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): None, Sir.

Mr. Jenkins: Will my hon. Friend consider very carefully such an application if it should be received and will he confirm that the facilities at present supplied are possibly adequate for the small village of Roehampton, but take no account at all of the large Alton estate, the colleges of education or the Queen Mary's Hospital? Does he not agree that the provision of public transport in this part of my constituency is grossly inadequate?

Mr. Swingler: We will certainly consider any proposal very carefully, if it is put forward. At the moment we have several important proposals, such as the extension of the Victoria Line to Brixton and the extension of the Piccadilly Line to London Airport, which warrant much higher priorities.

Oral Answers to Questions — Wales

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: asked the Minister of Transport (1) what was the annual loss suffered by railways in Wales, freight and passenger, in each of the years from 1955 to 1965;
(2) what was the annual loss made by British Railways in Wales in the years 1955 to 1965.

Mr. John Morris: As the hon. Member has already been informed, British Railways do not maintain their accounts on a basis enabling the financial results of operations in Wales to be calculated separately.

Mr. Evans: Does the Minister appreciate that the alleged loss on the railways in Wales as a whole is therefore an unproved hypothesis, and that facts have been published which suggest that there may not have been a loss at all, and that if no loss can be shown then the policy

of closure and of curtailment of services is totally unjustified? Does the Minister of Transport appreciate that she has left West Wales out on a limb?

Mr. Morris: There are no separate figures for Wales for the simple reasons that, as the hon. Gentleman should know, there are two separate regions operating within Wales. Time after time every effort has been made to clarify the misunderstanding in the hon. Gentleman's mind. He has certain figures regarding the Cardiff district and has tried to show that because the gross revenue is higher than the gross expenditure in that area, that is a reflection of the whole railway system in Wales. That is not so because Cardiff is an originating area for traffic, and it is not possible to draw any conclusion about the economics of railway operation in Wales from those figures. I hope that the hon. Gentleman now understands the situation.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Does the Minister's White Paper, amounting to an abandonment of the Beeching Plan, which would have confined the British Railways network to 8,000 miles of track, mean that certain lines in Wales which would otherwise have been closed will now be retained?

Mr. Morris: My right hon. Friend hopes to stabilise at an early date a considerably larger railway network than that which would inevitably have resulted from the continuation of former policies, and of course that applies to Wales.

Oral Answers to Questions — Victoria Underground (Extension)

Mr. Lipton: asked the Minister of Transport if she has now decided to approve the extension of the Victoria underground to Brixton.

Mr. Swingler: My right hon. Friend hopes to reach a decision soon.

Mr. Lipton: Having advocated this extension for more than 20 years, I find that a rather disappointing Answer. Will my hon. Friend give an undertaking that he will make 1967 the year of the great leap forward and, before the end of the year, sanction this much needed extension?

Mr. Swingler: I should have expected my hon. Friend to be glad that the proposal he made 20 years ago has got to


the top and is now on my right hon. Friend's table. As it is a £16 million project, she must give it very careful scrutiny, but a decision will be announced in the next few weeks

Oral Answers to Questions — One-class System

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Minister of Transport if she will give a general direction to British Railways to abolish the first and second class system of travel on British Railways and replace them with a one-class system, without loss of sleepers, reserved seats and other amenities.

Mr. John Morris: No, Sir.

Mr. Roberts: Would the Minister agree that British Railways are a social service and that anybody who pays his fare is entitled to first-class treatment? Would he further agree that it is ridiculous to have first-class compartments empty except for one or two hon. Members, when at the same time the tired commuter, the old and the infirm stand in second-class corridors?

Mr. Morris: I very much hope that British Railways give all their customers first-class treatment. This is a matter for management. I am informed that the proportion of seats is kept under constant review and whenever applicable it is adjusted to meet changes in current demand.

Mr. Longden: Does not the Question sum up Socialist philosophy in a nutshell? —because everybody cannot go to the Ritz, no one shall go to the Ritz? In other words, since excellence is the first casualty of equality, Socialism is the standard-bearer of the second-rate.

Mr. Morris: In his supplementary question, my hon. Friend showed a genuine and anxious concern for the old, the infirm and those without seats. I hope that it will not go out from this House that the hon. Member is not concerned to ensure that the old and the infirm have seats.

Mr. Mapp: Will my hon. Friend exclude the social nuances brought to this topic and ask the Railways Board to examine the operational savings, which are substantial arising from the principle here, pointing out to it that the London Transport Board and other commuter ser-

vices are making very effective operating economies in this regard? Would he have this seriously examined?

Mr. Morris: The finances of British Railways as a whole are matters which the joint inquiry of which I am chairman is investigating. But in the past year the income from first-class seats amounted to some £20 million

Sir G. Nabarro: Is it not a fact that if first-class travel by rail were abolished the only financial effect would be to increase the deficit of British Railways beyond the figure of £100 million which it is today? Will the Parliamentary Secretary therefore resist Socialist egalitarianism and cause the railways to earn a profit commercially, which they should be able to do?

Mr. Morris: I repeat that this is entirely a matter for the management of British Railways.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that all the services provided by British Railways from Orpington to termini in London are second-class, even though some are called first-class?

Mr. Morris: As a fairly regular traveller from very near the hon. Gentleman's constituency, I am aware of that

Oral Answers to Questions — Railways Board (Houses)

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Minister of Transport, if she will give a general direction, in the public interest, to the British Railways Board not to sell houses owned by them privately, without advertising, without public auction, and without being made available to other persons.

Mr. John Morris: No, Sir.

Mr. Ridsdale: Will the Parliamentary Secretary say why 74 houses were sold privately at Parkeston without being advertised or put up to public auction, and without being offered to existing tenants? Has the Minister looked into this and seen who the buyer was and how much was paid for the houses?

Mr. Morris: That is a matter for management, but the Board's practice is to offer single houses or pairs of houses to sitting tenants, and blocks of houses to local authorities first. I understand that the hon. Gentleman has been in substantial correspondence with the Railways Board on that case.

Mr. Wilkins: Is my hon. Friend aware of the intense feeling engendered among railway employees who occupy railway properties at their houses being sold over their heads to private speculators? Is he aware that I hold in my hand the voluminous correspondence I have had with him, dating back to last January, which includes a letter from estate agents and valuers offering to sell railway houses to employees before they had actually bought them? This is a shocking scandal and it should have been stopped.

Mr. Morris: I am well aware of the problem, and my right hon. Friend and I have looked into the matter generally very thoroughly over some months. I want to stress that this is a matter for management. British Railways give first offer of houses to individual tenants. The difficulty arises where not single houses but blocks of houses are available. Those are offered in the first instance not to tenants but to local authorities, because there is difficulty if only some houses are sold in a block and some remain. That causes great management difficulties.

Mr. Ridsdale: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter at the earliest possible moment on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — Rail Services, Yarmouth

Dr. Gray: asked the Minister of Transport on how many occasions the East Anglian Planning Council has made representations to her about curtailments of rail services in the Yarmouth constituency.

Mr. John Morris: None, Sir. The Council is well aware that my right hon. Friend will seek its advice on any proposal to discontinue all railway passenger services from any station or on any line in its region and that she has no statutory powers in relation to the reduction of such services.

Dr. Gray: Is my hon. Friend aware that if the East Anglian Planning Council has not made representations about the deterioration both in quality and quantity in railway services in my constituency, it has at least put forward a scheme for integrated transport in the remote rural areas of Norfolk?

Mr. Morris: I am not aware of the particular scheme to which my hon. Friend referred. I would be most interested and anxious to see it. Where there are allegations of deterioration in services, the first avenue is to go to the local management of the railways and then the Transport Users' Consultative Committees. I should be willing to look at particular points which my hon. Friend has in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — Closures

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Minister of Transport how many railway closures involving a length of line 40 miles and over in each case have been authorised during the last five years.

Mr. John Morris: Forty-five since September, 1962.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: In the light of that reply, does not the hon. Gentleman think that really it ought to be possible to explain, as I have requested in an earlier Question, how many of these lines involve severe hardship in the eyes of the Transport Users' Consultative Committee? Is he not trying to evade the admission that the approval of the closure of the Strathmore line in my constituency when a Committee said that severe hardship would be involved was almost unprecedented?

Mr. Morris: As I have explained already on two occasions to the hon. Gentleman, this information is not readily available. The difficulty is that severe hardship does not of necessity mean the same thing to every T.U.C.C. in the country. It may affect hundreds of people, or it may affect only a few. I can give an assurance to the hon. Gentleman that, before deciding the future of any railway line, my right hon. Friend takes full account of this.

Oral Answers to Questions — Mail Trains

Mr. Tilney: asked the Minister of Transport whether she will give a general direction to British Railways to arrange for mail trains from London to arrive in the provinces at an hour early enough to enable mail posted the previous night in London to be delivered in the provinces the following morning.

Mr. John Morris: No, Sir. The timing of mail trains is a matter for agreement


between the British Railways Board and the Post Office. I understand that as far as possible mail trains from London are timed to obtain the service mentioned.

Mr. Tilney: Is the Minister aware that, owing to the late arrival of mail trains in northern cities, particularly in Liverpool, there are continuing postal delays? Is he also aware that the Assistant Postmaster-General has said that he has no responsibility for British Railways? Will the hon. Gentleman, therefore, see that extra mail trains are put on?

Mr. Morris: I think that I can help the hon. Gentleman. I understand that there has been some deterioration in the punctuality of some mail trains between London and the North-West. I am given to understand that remedial action has been taken by British Railways, and services are improving.

Oral Answers to Questions — Railways Board (Loss)

Mr. Channon: asked the Minister of Transport what is expected to be the loss of the Railways Board during 1967.

Mrs. Castle: About £130 million.

Mr. Channon: What is the right hon. Lady doing about it?

Mrs. Castle: I am preparing the national freight organisation plan, which will be placed before the House shortly.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: By how much would the railways' loss be reduced if private road hauliers were allowed to bring traffic to liner trains?

Mrs. Castle: I should like to be able to assure the hon. Gentleman that that would miraculously wipe out the deficit, but it would not. Unfortunately, a major cause of these disappointing results has been the falling-off in the traditional traffics of British Rail—heavy bulk traffics such as iron and steel and coal. These are continuing difficulties.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

A44 Road, Pershore

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Transport whether she is aware that A44 and sidewalks through Pershore, Worcestershire, have been ripped up and trenched by statutory undertakings, elec-

tricity, gas, sewage, water and telephones, on 319 occasions during post-war years, thus causing vehicular congestion, inconvenience to pedestrians and wastage of public funds, rate-borne and tax-borne; and, as A44 has been re-made and resurfaced at Pershore, what steps she is taking to prevent recurrence of statutory depredations to this highway.

Mr. Swingler: The arrangements for such works are settled between the county council, as highway authority, and the statutory undertakers in accordance with the provisions of the Public Utilities Street Works Act of 1950. There are restrictions on the right of statutory undertakers to break up a road within a year of its being re-surfaced
We share the hon. Member's concern about the effect and cost of statutory undertakers' works. My right hon. Friend is currently considering, with other highway authorities, ways of improving the situation within the framework of the Act and proposes to initiate discussions with the statutory undertakers.

Sir G. Nabarro: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for that helpful Answer. Would he bear in mind that, although we all recognise the British national sport of digging holes in roads, 319 trenchings in 20 years is surely an all-time record? Can he not use his Ministerial influence directly with the statutory undertakers, all of which are nationalised undertakings, to try to prevent abuses of their legislative powers under the Acts which he mentioned?

Mr. Swingler: In fact the hon. Gentleman's figure is a slight underestimate of the position. The true figure is slightly higher. My right hon. Friend recognises that this situation cries out for co-ordination. That is why we are opening discussions with all the undertakers.

Sir G. Nabarro: I am most grateful.

Pedestrian Crossings

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: asked the Minister of Transport what progress has been made in the selective experiments increasing the number of pedestrian crossings referred to by the Parliamentary Secretary in an Adjournment Debate


on 10th December, 1965, in reply to the right hon. Member for Reigate.

Mr. Swingler: This experiment has not yet been concluded. Meanwhile, my right hon. Friend is satisfied that there should be some increase in the number of zebra crossings throughout the country. The relaxed criteria which she announced on 10th January will permit an increase of up to 20 per cent.

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: Could the hon. Gentleman tell us where these selective experiments are being held so that those interested may gain some knowledge of them? Does this mean that the three long-outstanding applications from Reigate Borough Council will now be agreed?

Mr. Swingler: Certainly Reigate's applications will be reconsidered in the light of the new criteria which take into account only peak hour flows of pedestrians and traffic. But, on the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I must decline to respond to his invitation. We are most anxious not to publicise the places where these experiments are taking place in case this should introduce a bias into the situation.

Humberside Road Network

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Transport (1) if she will now make a statement on the development of east-west communications to the city of Kingston-upon-Hull;
(2) if she will make a statement on the proposed Humber Bridge.

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Minister of Transport whether she has now made a decision about the building of the Humber Bridge.

Mrs. Castle: With permission I will answer Questions No. 6, 7 and 99 at the end of Question Time and I would be grateful if the hon. Members would await that time.

North-West Bristol

Mr. Ellis: asked the Minister of Transport what action she is taking to overcome the overloading of local roads throughout the whole of the north-west area of Bristol, in particular in Henbury,

which is causing danger to people who live in the area and has been aggravated by the opening of the Severn Bridge.

Mr. Swingler: Work is planned to start next month on the extension of M5 southwards from Cribbs Causeway to the Portway, near Avonmouth. When open this will remove a lot of traffic at present using roads in north-west Bristol.
The north-western part of the Henbury By-pass, a local authority scheme, is now under construction.

Mr. Ellis: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but is he aware that in this area there will be congestion until the whole of the motorway is finished? When will phase one start? What is the target date for the whole section?

Mr. Swingler: If my hon. Friend is referring to the Henbury by-pass, we recognise that there is a difficult situation there until the extension of the motorway goes past Bristol. This is a local authority scheme within the power of Bristol City to decide. By the middle of next year, part one should have been completed and it will then be for Bristol to decide how soon to start the second part of the Henbury by-pass.

Road System, South-West

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Transport what plans she has for extending the motorway system south-west of Bristol and for linking mid-Dorset with the system.

Mr. Dean: asked the Minister of Transport whether she has yet given her approval to the construction of a motorway in the South-West; to what places in the South-West this motorway will run; and when she estimates it will be completed.

Mrs. Castle: I intend that a new road should be built between the M5 at Edithmead and Exeter, but the line of the complete road, the standard of construction and the timing have still to be decided.
The case for links between the motorway system and mid-Dorset is being considered in my planning for the 1970's.

Mr. Digby: Will the right hon. Lady get on with this planning as soon as


possible, as we have learnt how long it takes between planning and completion of a motorway? Is it her intention to link up this section with the new Basingstoke motorway or with the Bristol motorway?

Mrs. Castle: I hope to announce very shortly the first instalment list of inter-urban schemes to be put into preparation now. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's desire to have the information as quickly as possible. Until it is available I cannot answer his detailed points.

Mr. Dean: Does the right hon. Lady realise that it is very disappointing that she has not been able to give the date? Does she recognise that this project is the most important one for the future prosperity of the West Country and that until she gives specific plans and dates we shall not feel that she means business about improving our road system in the West Country?

Mrs. Castle: As I have explained in a recent speech, progress is starting on a series of by-passes which will eventually contribute to this motorway. The Cullompton by-pass is expected to start this spring and we shall be announcing details of the succeeding ones as quickly as possible.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will the right hon. Lady please tell us what are the target dates, first for the completion of procedural work and secondly for the completion of structural work? She must at least have target dates even if she cannot tell us if the targets will be met.

Mrs. Castle: I must ask the hon. Member to await the announcement of the next phase of the inter-urban programme.

Mersey Tunnel

Mr. Brooks: asked the Minister of Transport, in view of the fact that the objectives of the mid-Wirral spine road now under consideration will be handicapped by the presence of only a two-lane road tunnel under the Mersey estuary at its northern end, whether she will expedite the construction of a twin two-lane tunnel.

Mrs. Castle: The duplication of the Liverpool-Wallasey tunnel is being con-

sidered for inclusion in the next extension of the Merseyside conurbation road programme.

Mr. Brooks: I thank my right hon. Friend for that assurance, but does she not agree that it is very incongruous to have a six-lane motorway feeding this tunnel? Does she not further agree that it is important to expedite construction of a twin tunnel before the team responsible for the first tunnel is dispersed?

Mrs. Castle: The need for duplication is not disputed but the scheme has not yet been programmed. It is being considered, along with other urgent road schemes in Merseyside for inclusion in the Merseyside programme.

West Midlands Motorway Link

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Minister of Transport when she expects the West Midlands motorway link to be completed; and if she will make a statement.

Mr. Swingler: The target completion date for the M1-M6 Motorway link is 1971 and that for the M5-M6 link, 1969.

Mrs. Short: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I remind him that there is increasing concern in the West Midlands about the congestion generally? Is he aware that in my constituency it is really quite frightful. Does he realise that I am sorry that I could not persuade my right hon. Friend to come to have a look at our difficulties and would he not agree that there is a case for using more intensive methods to advance completion dates of these motorway links? Will he look into this and see what can be done?

Mr. Swingler: My right hon. Friend is well aware of the problem in the West Midlands, which she recently visited, and we want to see matters going ahead as rapidly as possible. This is why my right hon. Friend is setting up such things as road construction units. I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that this is an enormously expensive and elaborate scheme, costing many millions of £s, and that it will involve the demolition of 400 properties and the construction of 12 miles of elevated road. We will do everything that we can to speed it up.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the railway scheme


envisages a restriction of railway services and therefore, in order to maintain this area, it is absolutely vital that the road connections are improved rapidly?

Mr. Swingler: My right hon. Friend is considering the future of the railway system precisely in relation to the trunk roads and these two things will be co-ordinated together.

Road Communications, North-East Essex

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Minister of Transport what further plans she has in mind to improve road communications to North-East Essex following the development of Harwich, Parkeston, as a liner train terminal.

Mr. John Morris: Plans to provide for developing road traffic to and from Harwich and Parkeston involve continuation of the comprehensive improvement of A12 from London to Woodbridge and the issue of grant to Essex County Council for schemes on A133 and A604. The improvement of A604 from Elmstead Market to west of Ramsey, including a by-pass of Wix, is included in the extension of the road programme announced today.

Mr. Ridsdale: I welcome that improvement, but is any work being done to get a motorway from the Midlands to the East Coast ports, as this is a vital requirement for the trade of the East Coast ports, and the Government will waste money if they do not invest in such a project?

Mr. Morris: If the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question on that particular issue, I shall try to answer it. Having regard to the measure of authorisation of capital expenditure which my right hon. Friend has agreed in respect of Parkeston, amounting to £8 million, it is essential that there should be good road links in order to serve this very important development.

Off-Street Parking Facilities

Sir R. Russell: asked the Minister of Transport to what extent it is her policy to arrange for local authorities to take over responsibility for all off-street parking facilities in their areas.

Mr. Swingler: We encourage local authorities to provide a good proportion

of off-street parking space themselves. They must decide what the proportion should be.

Sir R. Russell: Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that his right hon. Friend will not encourage this to be a monopoly which might be used for introducing pricing schemes or other methods of traffic control?

Mr. Swingler: Local authorities are responsible for parking policy and they have planning powers precisely in order to try to relate the provision of parking space to the amount of road space available, and that is what my right hon. Friend wants the local authorities to do. In other respects no one has put forward a proposition for a complete monopoly.

Radial Route 7

Mr. Arnold Shaw: asked the Minister of Transport whether the route to be followed by radial route 7 has been finally decided; and when work on the project will start.

Mr. Swingler: The route is still under investigation. We hope that work will start very early in the 'seventies.

Mr. Shaw: While I am not particularly satisfied with that reply, in respect of the time taken in announcing this scheme, may I ask my hon. Friend to find some ways of short-circuiting the delay between the announcement of a scheme and a decision on at least the line of route to be taken, and so allay the fears of people affected?

Mr. Swingler: I regret the difficulties that have arisen, but the consultants found the job more complicated, and have been considering more alternative routes, than was expected. We hope very shortly to have a report from the consultants, and we shall take steps as quickly as possible to allay any anxiety, by announcing a definite route.

M1 Motorway

Mr. Gurden: asked the Minister of Transport if she will provide additional traffic lanes by widening the M1 motorway.

Mr. Swingler: Studies have shown that the case for additional traffic lanes on the M1 is less pressing than the


need to improve many other parts of the inter-urban road network during the early 1970s.

Mr. Gurden: Does the Parliamentary Secretary not realise that there must be some planning ahead as the M1 is already showing signs of congestion because of the additional miles of motorway further north, where all the traffic must be channelled into the Ml, and that it is possible to use the side lanes as tracks?

Mr. Swingler: That will be considered, but it is far more important to get on with the motorway links.

M5 Motorway

Mr. Dean: asked the Minister of Transport when she expects the M5 motorway to Edithmead in Somerset to be completed.

Mr. Swingler: By the end of 1971.

Mr. Dean: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for that Answer, but would he do his utmost to try to speed this up? Does he recognise that as the motorway system progresses towards Bristol the problems of traffic congestion further south are becoming much more serious?

Mr. Swingler: Certainly. As I said to one of my hon. Friends from Bristol, we appreciate the difficulty there will now be with the extension of M5 past Bristol. Every step will be taken to carry it through as quickly as we can.

Mr. Wilkins: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of his colleagues in the South-West are pleased with the belated interest of hon. Members opposite in the problems of road transport in the South-West, seeing that they had 13 years in which they could have done this job? Will my hon. Friend take particular notice of Question No. 86?

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are 99 Questions to the Minister on the Order Paper. The hon. Member's supplementary question must be brief.

Mr. Ridley: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the construction of the extension from Twyning to Gloucester was due to be completed by the end of 1968? Can he now say when that section will be completed, in view of its extreme urgency in Gloucestershire?

Mr. Swingler: We come to a further Question on that point in a minute.

A1 Road, Hertfordshire (Dual Carriageways)

Sir R. Russell: asked the Minister of Transport when she expects that the dualling of the A1 road in Hertfordshire will be completed.

Mr. John Morris: I cannot yet give firm dates for the final two schemes still to be undertaken, totalling 8 miles, but otherwise the dualling should be completed this year.

Sir R. Russell: Is it not extraordinary that there should be only this small gap in the A1 right from London to the other side of Grantham? Has it not been possible to speed up the dualling of this section?

Mr. Morris: The situation is that from Lemsford to "The Clock", Welwyn, it is hoped that work will begin in 1969–70, although there is some difficulty as regards the route. As for the section from "The Comet" to South Mimms, it is hoped that work will start there in the early 1970s, but it has, as yet, to be programmed.

A30 Road, Cornwall and Devon

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: asked the Minister of Transport what major road improvement schemes she has approved for the A30 road in Cornwall and Devon which will have a starting date within the next 12 months.

Mr. Swingler: During the next 12 months work should start on four improvement schemes at Lewdown, Bridestowe, Lanivet and Hayle Junction.
Work should also start on 11 other important but by comparison inexpensive improvements.

Mr. Wilson: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask whether he appreciates that the A30 carries much the greatest part of the commercial traffic in the shape of china clay, agricultural produce, and so on from Cornwall, and not the A38? Will he make sure that nothing is done to delay improvements on the A30 which are urgently necessary?

Mr. Swingler: I have shown that we recognise the need for improving the A30, and we are doing so. On the other hand, the hon. Gentleman will know that the Joint Committee for the South-West recommended that priority should be given to the A38.

Mr. Peter Mills: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that due to the closure of railways in this whole region, this road is really the main artery to the South-West and bears increasingly heavy loads?

Mr. Swingler: We recognise the heavy load, and that is why improvement schemes are being carried out. Long consultations went on with the highway authority, and, I repeat, the Joint Committee for the South-West recommended priority for the A38.

TRANSPORT

Motor Insurance (Foreign Motorists)

Mr. Robert Howarth: asked the Minister of Transport if she is satisfied that international motor insurance conditions give sufficient protection to citizens of this country if their property is damaged by visiting foreign motorists; and if she will make a statement.

Mrs. Castle: I am satisfied that the present international arrangements secure compliance with the law on motor insurance, which is the same for visiting motorists as for other motorists in this country. Liability for property damage is not, however, compulsorily insurable and I see no case for making a distinction in the particular case of visiting motorists.

Mr. Howarth: Is my right hon. Friend aware, however, that if damage to property by visiting foreign motorists occurs, it means that the complainants may have to consider taking civil action in a foreign court and that, for people of modest means, this is in effect quite impossible? Will she look again at this to see whether anything can be done?

Mrs. Castle: I repeat that I do not think it possible to make a distinction in the case of visiting motorists and have a law applying to them which does not apply to our own motorists. The vast majority of claims to compensation are

settled out of court and it does not seem as though my hon. Friend's constituent has yet attempted to negotiate a settlement. I suggest to him that that is his next and best course.

National Plan

Mr. Galbraith: asked the Minister of Transport whether paragraph 12 or Chapter 12 of the National Plan, Command Paper No. 2764, still represents the Government's policy.

Mrs. Castle: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Petersfield (Miss Quennell) on 23rd November, 1966.—[Vol. 736, c. 306.]

Mr. Galbraith: Can the right hon. Lady say whether she is satisfied with the progress being made and whether she considers that substantial progress is being made in closing down stations? Can she indicate the date when concentration on selected trunk routes may be expected and when manning is to be reduced on trains? These are the three things referred to in the National Plan.

Mrs. Castle: They may be referred to in the National Plan but the reply to which I referred pointed out that my Ministry and the Railways Board had set up joint machinery to study the financial implications of new policies for the railways. If the hon. Gentleman asks whether I am satisfied with the progress of this large survey, I assure him that the answer is, "Yes".

Retired People (Concessionary Fares)

Mr. Winnick: asked the Minister of Transport what progress has been made so far in allowing retired people concessionary fares on public transport in all areas.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Minister of Transport if she will now take steps to enable retirement pensioners and others in receipt of social security payments to have concessionary fares on all public transport.

Mr. Hastings: asked the Minister of Transport whether she will now make a further statement on the question of travel


concessions for non-municipal bus operators.

Mr. Swingler: My right hon. Friend has now received replies from the associations of local authorities whom she consulted on what would be involved in an extension of their powers to contribute towards the cost of concessionary fares. She is considering all their views in order to see what amending legislation may be necessary.

Mr. Winnick: I am grateful for that reply, but is my hon Friend aware of the very strong feeling among pensioners about the need to have these reduced fares on public transport during off-peak hours? Can my hon. Friend give any kind of date as to when we are likely to have a further statement on this matter?

Mr. Swingler: My right hon. Friend is aware of the widespread demand for an extension in this sense. That is why she initiated these discussions with the local authority associations. She will be in a position very soon to make a statement on the subject.

Mr. Roberts: Is my hon. Friend aware that, since I tabled my Question, I have had dozens of letters calling for urgent action? Is he also aware that many Labour-controlled local authorities, like Luton, are anxious to offer this concession to old-age pensioners and are only waiting for the go-ahead from Westminster?

Mr. Swingler: Yes, Sir. We are aware of this. But my hon. Friend will recognise that this is a matter of the power and functions of local authorities. It is right that they should be able to give their views to my right hon. Friend. But they are not all in complete agreement about the manner of doing this, and therefore it takes a little time to carry through the discussion.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the demands for concessions of this type would be greatly diminished if the Government succeeded in maintaining the value of the pensions?

River Thames (Hovercraft)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Transport (1) whether she has had any applications from hovercraft firms to run a continuous all-the-year-round daily service on the Thames from Tilbury to Richmond;
(2) whether she will refer to the Transport Co-ordinating Council for London the question of establishing a continuous all-the-year-round daily service on the Thames from Tilbury to Richmond, with a view to relieving traffic congestion on the streets of London.

Mrs. Castle: I have had no such applications. I do not think a regular Thames passenger service would contribute enough to the relief of traffic congestion to justify referring the idea to the Council.

Mr. Rankin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, on the last occasion when I raised this, the chief objection lodged against it was the speed of the tide? With the advent of the hovercraft, would not that difficulty be met? If there were adequate pier facilities, in view of the numbers of people who now travel for pleasure on the Thames, would this not provide some relief of the congestion presently on London's roads?

Mrs. Castle: With regard to hovercraft, I can only repeat that neither I nor the Board of Trade have received any applications to operate a service with one and therefore I cannot produce it out of thin air. River travel is very pleasant for tourists and as an amenity but my hon. Friend's suggestion would not, I am afraid, relieve the traffic congestion in London and I would not be justified in referring it to the Council for serious consideration.

Mr. A. Royle: Is the right hon. Lady aware that her reply will be received with pleasure by many of my constituents who live alongside the river? Is she further aware that, with the institution of a hovercraft service, the noise would be extremely detrimental to the amenities of people living alongside the Thames?

Mrs. Castle: All this is completely hypothetical in the absence of an application.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is the right hon. Lady aware that a constituent of mine, Thames Launches Limited, produced a non-noisy type of hovercraft three or four years ago which ran on the Thames and that, with financial encouragement, the firm is ready to restart the service?

Mrs. Castle: I can only repeat that no application has been received.

Road Accidents (Solomon Committee's Report)

Mr. Ian Lloyd: asked the Minister of Transport whether she accepts the findings of the Solomon Report on Accidents on Main Rural Highways Related to Speed, Driver and Vehicle, details of which have been sent to her.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: asked the Minister of Transport what changes in speed limit legislation she proposes to introduce as a result of the findings of the Solomon Report, details of which have been sent to her.

Mr. John Morris: The Solomon Report is among the evidence being considered by the inter-departmental working party which is now reviewing all aspects of speed limit policy. It is too early to say what changes in legislation or practice may result from this review.

Mr. Lloyd: While thanking the Parliamentary Secretary for that slightly encouraging reply, may I ask him if this inter-departmental working party will pay very close attention to the serious statistical evidence which the Solomon Committee produced, that the relative speeds on major highways are a far more important contributory factor to accidents than absolute speed?

Mr. Morris: I am well aware of these matters and the Road Research Laboratory is re-examining the report and has been discussing certain factors with the U.S. Bureau of Public Roads.

Mr. Molloy: Is my hon. Friend aware that those of us who are concerned with the high accident rate approve very much the 70-mile-an-hour experiment? Can his right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that she will in no way be influenced by some ridiculous hostile propaganda to call off this very important experiment?

Mr. Morris: I can give my hon. Friend every assurance that my right hon. Friend will pursue this experiment. In due course we hope to have a discussion in the House on it.

Written-off Vehicles (Registration Books)

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Minister of Transport if she will introduce legislation to ensure that particulars of

accidents resulting in insurance write-off should be entered in vehicle registration books.

Mr. John Morris: Legislation for this purpose would not be necessary. As my hon. Friend announced on 16th November last, we hope that it will be possible to make arrangements with insurers for the registration books of vehicles on which a total loss payment has been made to be suitably marked. Discussions on detail are proceeding and will be concluded as quickly as possible.

Leeds (Joint Study)

Mr. C. Pannell: asked the Minister of Transport what have been the results of the work done by the special partnership between her Department, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the Leeds City Council in the fields of traffic, transport and related problems; and what further work is contemplated.

Mrs. Castle: The work has shown how integrated policies for planning, housing, public transport, road construction, traffic management and parking can be directed to a realistic common end. It has also clarified the ways in which public and private transport can be brought into a proper balance.
We propose to embody the lessons in a joint publication.
The partnership is now concentrating on ways of improving public transport and on environmental problems.

Mr. Pannell: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, in which she indicates, presumably, a great deal of satisfaction; but, if this is such an unmitigated success, does she intend to extend the principle to less fortunate Yorkshire cities?

Mrs. Castle: This imaginative concept of partnership between my Ministry and Leeds City Corporation for which my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Tom Fraser) must take full credit—I gladly accord it to him—points the way in which we can have joint studies which will encourage local authorities to do as Leeds has done, that is, to look at the problem of transport as a whole and draw up a balanced plan.

National Freight Organisation

Mr. Peter Walker: asked the Minister of Transport what progress she has made in agreeing the details of a national freight authority with those concerned.

Mrs. Castle: My plans for the national freight organisation are being drawn up in close consultation with the Railways Board and the Transport Holding Company. I have also discussed them with the T.U.C.; and I am about to do so with the transport unions, the Road Haulage Association and the Transport Users' Joint Committee.

Mr. Walker: It is now six months since the publication of the White Paper, and the House of Commons has had no opportunity to debate the White Paper or the proposals concerned. Does the right hon. Lady realise that the uncertainty is causing unrest in the road haulage business and on the railways? Will she undertake that it will not be another six months before we know the details?

Mrs. Castle: I cannot accept that there is uncertainty and unrest. What is happening is the normal procedure following the publication of a White Paper and preceding the introduction of very detailed legislation. The hon. Gentleman would be the first to complain if I did not consult and study very carefully. This is what I am doing, and our programme is on time in preparation for the legislation.

Mr. Walker: Is the right hon. Lady aware that all the latest statistics show, for example, a considerable down-turn in investment in new vehicles in the road haulage business, and the railways are uncertain of their future, too? Will it take another six months? Cannot the right hon. Lady give some indication?

Mrs. Castle: I do not for a moment accept that the trend of investment in the road haulage business has been influenced by my White Paper. As I told the hon. Gentleman, I am to meet the Road Haulage Association very shortly—in fact, on 8th February—when it will have a full opportunity to discuss the details with me.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Will my right hon. Friend agree that the best method may

be to integrate British Rail and British Road Services completely, as they were so successfully integrated before, although improvements might be made even on that integration?

Mrs. Castle: It is my policy to have the integration of road and rail on both the freight and the passenger side, but, as I explained in the White Paper, I believe that we need a different structure of integration for passenger transport, that is, through the transportation authorities in the localities, from what we need for freight, for which my national freight organisation will provide a national solution.

Mr. Strauss: I appreciate that it must take quite a time to work out the details for such an important structural change, but can my right hon. Friend say when she hopes to be able to come to the House with the necessary legislation? What is her target for such legislation?

Mrs. Castle: My target is the earliest possible place I can get in the legislative programme, and that is at the beginning of next Session. That is my target, and we are on target in preparation for it. I shall later this year publish a White Paper indicating and explaining the details of the legislation.

Mr. Galbraith: The right hon. Lady refers to integration. I have asked her this question before. What does she mean by integration? Does it mean unification or does it mean amalgamation?

Mrs. Castle: It means the kind of thing we are already launching between British Rail parcels and sundries and B.R.S. parcels, in other words, merging of depôts, a unified planning of cartage and schedules, and general rationalisation and economies.

Public Transport, Nottinghamshire

Mr. Marquand: asked the Minister of Transport what studies are being carried out by her Department of the future development of public transport in the industrial areas of Nottinghamshire.

Mr, John Morris: The Department is taking part in a study by the regional Economic Planning Board of the development of the Nottinghamshire-Derbyshire industrial zone and in a subregional


study by the city of Nottingham and the county council
Both studies will consider transport needs and the role of public transport.

Mr. Marquand: That Answer gives considerable satisfaction, but is my hon. Friend aware that the study of the East Midlands already published in the East Midlands Planning Council shows that there is likely to be a rapid increase of population in industrial Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire by the end of the century, and it seems to follow from that that there will be a greatly increased demand for public transport in the area? Will he, therefore, at least look at the possibility of reopening some of the closed passenger services on railway lines in the area, such as the Nottingham-Workshop line?

Mr. Morris: I do not want to raise my hon. Friend's hopes on the particular case he mentions, but public transport will be very much a matter for consideration by these working parties.

Driving Tests, Birmingham (Fee)

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Transport whether she is aware that Mrs. G. Smith, of Drakes Broughton, Worcestershire, who was booked for her driving test in Birmingham on 14th October, 1966, was subsequently subpoenaed to attend at Staffordshire Assizes on that day as a witness and that her Department have refused to refund Mrs. Smith's driving test fee; and whether she will instruct her Birmingham Regional Office to refund the fee to Mrs. Smith.

Mrs. Castle: I am afraid I cannot at present trace this case with certainty; no test for a lady of this name was booked in Birmingham for 14th October. But if the hon. Member would care to give me more details, I shall be glad to look into the matter further.

Sir G. Nabarro: Would the right hon. Lady accept my assurance that I have myself examined all the documents with her Department? Is it not the fact that this lady gave the requisite notice of withdrawal, having received a subpoena to attend assizes in Stafford? In those circumstances why should an official of her Department be so over-bearing and officious as to refuse to recognise the supreme summons of a subpoena to an assize court?

Mrs. Castle: I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's statement. I am not able to verify the exact details of this case for the simple reason that the lady herself has never written in reclaiming the fee. There are reports of a telephone call. I can only gather the appropriateness or otherwise of what the hon. Gentleman says from a Press report. That is why I ask him to give full particulars. The provisions of the Act under which this kind of case is treated were introduced by the hon. Gentleman's own Conservative Administration in 1962. The proviso that there must be three clear working days' notice in order for the examination to be taken up by someone else was laid down by his Government. May I ask him whether he does not now feel—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—You do not like it. That is why.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I should remind the right hon. Lady that there are a lot of Questions.

Mrs. Castle: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if he will confirm his statement, as reported in the Sunday Express, that I had been harsh and feline? Will he not agree that he has been irresponsible?

Mr. Peter Walker: When the right hon. Lady regains her temper, perhaps she could comment on the proposition that, if someone is subpœnaed to attend an assize court—and if legislation is needed to amend the previous Act, we shall support it—such a licence fee should be refunded as a matter of principle?

Mrs. Castle: Quite frankly, there is a difficulty here. When the Bill which later became the 1962 Act was before the House, an Amendment was moved to include hardship as a ground for refund. That was negatived by the majority of the House and, therefore, it is obvious that the House realised the difficulties which arise if an exception is once made. However, I am quite willing to look into the details of this case, but the fact is that the lady herself has not written to my Ministry, nor has the hon. Gentleman taken the trouble to write to me about it.

Sir G. Nabarro: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Having regard to that most unsatisfactory reply, I shall ask you for an Adjournment debate at an early date.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Adjournments must be asked for in the conventional way.

City Centres (Private Cars)

Mr. Channon: asked the Minister of Transport what proposals she now has for limiting private cars in the centre of big cities.

Mrs. Castle: I am encouraging local authorities to make full use of parking controls.

Mr. Channon: Is the Minister saying that that is all she has in mind for now, or for the foreseeable future? Is she going to make a statement to the House about this subject in the foreseeable future, or is what she has just said the extent of the announcement that she proposes to make on the subject?

Mrs. Castle: I have made it quite clear to the House on a number of occasions that for the immediate future the most effective way of relating traffic on the roads to the road capacity available to take it is to improve and extend parking controls. I have also made it clear to the House, as did the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples), that this may not be enough, and that we may be forced to study other measures. We are not ready, in our studies, to reach decisions on any further policy.

PORTS

Container Facilities (Deep Water Berths)

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Transport, in view of the rapid development of Rotterdam as the principal European container port, what steps she is taking to encourage the early building of deep water berths to handle containers in ports either on the English or Bristol Channels, in addition to Tilbury.

Mrs. Castle: In accordance with my policy of encouraging the modernisation of our ports, including the provision of container facilities where appropriate, I have authorised the British Transport Docks Board to build a 1,000 ft. container berth at Southampton, and a deep-water berth already under construction

at Newport will be provided with container facilities if prospective traffic justifies it.

Mr. Digby: Is the right hon. Lady aware that any decision on this subject is highly welcome, but that we will want more time to look at the details? Is she further aware that in view of the rapid progress at Rotterdam, Antwerp and Le Havre it is essential for the future of British shipping that these facilities should be built without delay?

Mrs. Castle: I entirely agree with the hon. Member that we do not want to be left behind in the container revolution.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: I am grateful for the Minister's Answer about the new container facilities at Southampton, but can she say whether there is any likelihood of further development in the port of Southampton, as envisaged in the interim plan of the Ports Council, and if so when it is likely to come?

Mrs. Castle: I shall be making an announcement in due course about the provision of further container facilities, but I cannot at the moment add to what I have said about Southampton.

Smaller Ports

Mr. Costain: asked the Minister of Transport what consultations she has had to effect the greater utilisation of the smaller ports in the United Kingdom.

Mrs. Castle: The National Ports Council, whose responsibility it is to advise me on these matters, is fully aware of the important part played by the smaller ports in the economic life of the nation, and keeps in close touch with their problems.

Mr. Costain: Does not the Minister accept responsibility for the development of small ports, and would she not agree that it is necessary to increase the capacity of those small ports? Is it not necessary to have consultations with local authorities? Why will she not receive a deputation from Folkestone Council?

Mrs. Castle: It is certainly the duty of the National Ports Council to apprise itself of the needs of the smaller ports, and it is doing that, as the hon. Gentleman will see if he studies its Annual


Report and Accounts for 1965. The Chairman, the Director-General and the chief officers have been making special tours and studies of the needs of the small ports, and I have their representations very much in mind.

Mr. McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the main grievance is that many of these smaller ports are not covered by the National Dock Labour Scheme? Will she consult her Department about the need to extend the scheme to cover the ports of the whole country?

Mrs. Castle: That is a different question.

HUMBERSIDE ROAD NETWORK

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. WALL: To ask the Minister of Transport (1) if she will now make a statement on the development of east-west communications to the city of Kingston-upon-Hull;
(2) if she will make a statement on the proposed Humber bridge.

Mr. JAMESJOHNSON: To ask the Minister of Transport, whether she has now made a decision about the building of the Humber bridge.

Mrs. Castle: With permission, I will now answer Questions Nos. 6, 7 and 99 together
I have been considering these matters in relation to the question of the terminal point for the final section of the Lancashire-Yorkshire motorway
I have decided to make the scheme for this section of M62, joining the A1 near Ferrybridge, as proposed by my predecessor in October, 1965, and to maintain the proposals for the trunk road network between the A1 and Humberside which he then announced. Letters are being sent today to the objectors to the scheme to inform them of this decision and explain it
I have fully considered the arguments put to me last year by several local authorities and by the Humber Bridge Board that the M62 should join the A1 near Ledsham instead of Ferrybridge,

and that an alternative trunk road network including a Humber bridge should be adopted, and have taken into account fresh information on estimated traffic flows and construction and operating costs. I am satisfied that my decision in favour of Ferrybridge for the intersection with the A1, which is supported by the Yorkshire and Humberside Economic Planning Council and by the West Riding County Council, will make the best use of our capital resources by giving early and progressively increasing benefits to communications with Humberside.
Furthermore, this decision in no way prejudices the prospect of constructing a Humber Bridge as an integral part of any large-scale development on Humber-side. The Government will make decisions on that when they have considered the results of the current planning studies, which are expected to be available in the latter part of this year. The Bridge will be given a place in the road programme so as to fit in with the development, in the 1970s if need be, and meanwhile no time will be lost in pressing ahead with the work necessary to bring the new trunk road network into being.

Mr. Wall: Is the Minister aware that her reply will be a great disappointment to all the local authorities in the East Riding who wanted the terminal at Ledsham? Is she further aware that the uncertainty about the Humber Bridge, which has been debated in the House for over 30 years, has not been set at rest by her statement, and will she make a clear statement telling us when she expects work on this bridge to start?

Mrs. Castle: I am well aware of the views of the East Riding County Council, although these views were opposed by the West Riding County Council. It has been my duty to examine as objectively as I can the traffic needs of Humberside, including the east-west flow. I am confident that this network will be most beneficial for Humberside as a whole. I have made it clear that the Humber Bridge must depend upon the findings of the development survey.

Mr. McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is just over a year since she said, in my constituency, "You will have your Humber bridge"? Is she further aware that we in Hull are pleased


at the progress that the Government are making in establishing effective east-west routes which were neglected by the party opposite, when it was in power, for many years? Can she say on what sort of time scale—the feasibility study having been completed—she expects to know about the bridge, and its starting date?

Mrs. Castle: My memory is clear about what I said in my hon. Friend's constituency. What I have just said accords exactly with what I said then. I said, "You will get your bridge when the development goes ahead." We recognise that it must be an integral part of the development and, as I said in my reply, we hope to have the results of the current planning studies in the latter part of this year.

Mr. Kimball: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the transport section of the regional development board's first year's report says quite clearly that the Humber bridge is essential before the regional development plan of each side of the Humber, North Lincolnshire and South Yorkshire, can proceed? In view of this report will she give greater priority to the construction of the bridge?

Mrs. Castle: No. On the contrary, if the hon. Member will study the Yorkshire and Humberside Economic Planning Council report he will find that it agrees with us that it is essential to give priority to this road network first, although it says—and I have said it in my reply—that as and when development goes forward south of the Humber we shall have to bring the bridge into the problem.

Mr. Peter Walker: Is the right hon. Lady aware that there was not one elector in the Hull by-election who thought that when she declared, to a crowded meeting, "You will have your Humber bridge," a year later she would be standing at that Dispatch Box explaining why they cannot have it now?

Mrs. Castle: On the contrary. The hon. Member knows quite well, or if he cares to turn up the cuttings he will see that my exact words were, "You shall have your bridge when this development goes ahead." We have always made it clear that obviously the Humber bridge is an integral part of the plan for Hum-

berside. I am repeating that. The question is simply whether it is better to go ahead with the East Riding network or to have the one which we have proposed. In the interests of Humberside, as was made clear by the Economic Planning Council, the decision we are taking here is the right one.

Sir C. Osborne: Despite whatever was or was not said at a by-election, may I assure the right hon. Lady on behalf of my constituents—since this proposal affects Immingham, in my constituency—that we think that she has made the right decision not to have the bridge at once, since capital is limited? Will she study the requirement for better facilities for Immingham, which is a rapidly developing port, and the possibility of building a road from the South Humber bank to the Midlands before she gives consent to the bridge being built?

Mrs. Castle: I am grateful to the hon. Member, because he recognises what all objective students of the network required in this area recognise, namely, that this is the right order of priorities and that this network will do most to help traffic flows. I shall certainly bear in mind the point made by the hon. Member about Immingham.

Mr. Blackburn: On a point or order. May I ask for your help, Mr. Speaker? May we have the Tannoy system overhauled in this Chamber? Much of what is said is quite inaudible at this end of the Chamber. The only alternative seems to be for hon. Members at that end to take elocution lessons. We cannot hear much of what takes place in the Chamber.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that from time to time there is some difficulty in hearing in the corner of the Chamber to which the hon. Member refers. I will ask the engineers to look into the matter. It helps the House if hon Members speak up.

Mr. Harold Walker: Is the right hon. Lady aware that no matter what divisions may exist in opinion, the East Riding of Yorkshire and the West Riding will be united in their welcome of her statement on this matter about the site of the terminal area? Is she aware that my constituents will see this as a welcome and


urgent contribution towards the solution of the east-west traffic congestion in the middle of Doncaster and will she therefore seek to accelerate development in order that it may lead to a contribution towards a solution of that problem?

Mrs. Castle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is hoped to complete the M62 and start work on the A1 Humberside network in the early 1970s.

Mr. Wall: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Speaker: Yesterday, as reported at column 1272 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, I undertook to give a Ruling on the subject of a Ministerial Answer voluntarily given after 3.30 p.m. to a Question which had not been reached during Question hour and to consider the effect of the absence from the Chamber of the Member who had put down the Question. It would clearly not be fair to allow a Minister to give an answer to a Question which an hon. Member had deliberately withdrawn. My predecessor in the Chair in 1910 refused to permit a Minister to answer in such circumstances. Hon. Members will find this case in the footnote (p) on page 356 of Erskine May.
But, as the House knows, the mere absence of a Member does not imply the withdrawal of a Question. If a Member is not present when his Question is called and he has not moved to withdraw or defer it, the Questioner in any case receives a Written Answer. The same page of Erskine May from which I have already quoted gives instances in footnote (o) where Ministers have, in the public interest, made statements in answer to Questions by Members who did not respond to Mr. Speaker's call to put a Question. The latest of these instances relate to a Question answered in just such a way as Question No. 50 yesterday to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I therefore consider on reflection that had the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce Gardyne) not been in his place yesterday I should still have been bound to allow the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to answer his Question.
On the other hand—and this arose in a supplementary point of order—the House may wish to know that I am always informed immediately of the withdrawal or deferment of a Question during the course of Questions and that in such an event I should certainly adopt the course followed by my predecessor in 1910 if the Minister offered to answer such a Question after it had been withdrawn or deferred, except when it had been answered as one of a number of Questions which are answered together.
Perhaps I should add that a Question cannot be deferred if the Minister at his discretion decides to answer it together with an earlier Question asked by another Member. In such cases the Questioner's instruction to the Table to have his Question postponed has to be disregarded.
The House will appreciate from what I have said that there may be several variants in what seems at first to be a simple practice and that this justifies my request yesterday to the House that I should delay my complete Ruling and rule formally on this subject today.

Mr. Heath: Further to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. The House is grateful to you for your very clear Ruling on this matter. Although it is not a matter for order but one of the customs of the House, would you not agree that for many years it has been the custom that Ministers observe the courtesy of informing Members when they intend to answer a Question which is unlikely to be reached—that can never be a clear judgment—in order to help a Member to be in the Chamber when he may have judged that in the normal way his Question would not be answered orally?

Mr. Speaker: I must stand where I stood yesterday and state that I cannot enter into that kind of question. I am not aware of how completely the practice to which the right hon. Gentleman refers has been observed.

Sir C. Taylor: Has it not always been traditional that if a Minister wishes to answer a Question at the end of Questions he should write a note, which is put on the Notice Board, saying, "If by any chance your Question"—No. 40, No. 50 or whatever it is—" is not reached today, I propose to ask the leave of the House


to answer it after Questions"? That may only be courtesy, but it is certainly traditional.

Mr. Speaker: That is a point for the hon. Member to make to the House, but I am not prepared to comment on it.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: May I thank you for the Ruling which you have given to the point of order which I raised yesterday, Mr. Speaker? May I add a comment in the interests of accuracy? There seems to be some misunderstanding about the fact that I was not in my place when the Question was called yesterday. I was standing behind the Chair and therefore not in a position to put the Question if it had been called in the normal way. I should add that in the interests of accuracy.

Mr. Speaker: That is a matter of geography. It does not affect the Ruling that I have given.

Mr. Callaghan: Further to that point of order. I would always think it proper to notify a Member in circumstances in which it seemed likely that his Question would not be reached. Although I do not wish to pursue this too far, in fact a message left the Treasury yesterday but apparently it did not arrive here. I should like the House to know that. I stood on what I regarded as the traditional position when the matter was challenged in the House, but I always inform Members, and I very much regret that the message on this occasion did not reach the hon. Member concerned.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order. Is it the right of a Minister to answer a Question after the end of Questions or is it not subject to the consent

of the House? If it is subject to the consent of the House, cannot the House withhold its consent if it considers that the Minister concerned is not treating the House with due courtesy?

Mr. Speaker: The position is that in the kind of Answer to which the hon. Member refers, or indeed a statement, a Minister usually begins, "With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House". That is a formula. The Minister has the right to come to the House and to answer a Question which has not been reached on the Order Paper, just as he has the right to come to the House and to make a statement. But he traditionally begins with that formula because this House is traditionally a courteous place.

Mr. Will Griffiths: Further to what has been said by the Leader of the Opposition and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, surely the important point is that the Chancellor knows and we all know that Questions which are put down for Oral Answer and are very low on the Order Paper may not he reached. We can guess from experience that often they are not reached. With the resources which Ministers have, I think that they have an absolute duty to see that hon. Members are told when it is intended to answer the Question or to make a statement. We all appreciate the courteous content of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, but back-bench Members are entitled as a right to a notification that the Minister intends to answer their Question even if it is not reached and they are not present to ask it.

Mr. Speaker: I think that if the hon. Member studies the Ruling which I gave he will find that I have covered most of the points which he raised.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS

The SECOND CLERK ASSISTANT: No. 51.

Mr. Weatherill: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I had not yet called the hon. Member. His eagerness is commendable, but it is out of order. Mr. Weatherill.

Small Businesses

Mr. Weatherill: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I beg to give notice that on Friday, 10th February, I shall call attention to the problems facing small businesses, and move a Resolution.

Unemployment and Employment

Mr. Atkinson: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 10th February, I shall call attention to the problem of unemployment and employment. and move a Resolution.

Liner Trains

Mr. Peter Walker: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 10th February, I shall call attention to the problems affecting liner trains, and move a Resolution.

TRAVEL CONCESSIONS

3.45 p.m.

Mr. Bob Brown (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to remove certain restrictions on the power of local authorities to make arrangements for the granting of travel concessions, and to enable road passenger transport undertakings to make such arrangements.
I want to preface my remarks by paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Edward Short), who persisted for so many years with his Travel Concessions Bill and finally, in spite of having it blocked by so many hon. Members opposite, succeeded in getting the Labour Government to put on the Statute Book the Travel Concessions Act, 1964. This Act, it is fair to say, has been a tremendous boon to many thousands of elderly and disabled people who were not able under the terms of the 1955 Act to benefit from con-

cessionary fares. Nevertheless, like many other good Acts it has its deficiencies, which have created anomalies so glaring as to cause it to be seen as an Act which, while benefiting very many old folk, is operating unfairly against many others
The Bill which I seek to introduce seeks to remove two anomalies which exist under the Act of 1955 as amended by the Act of 1964, which I shall hereafter refer to as the existing legislation First, it removes any doubt that private company operators may grant or make arrangements for the granting of travel concessions to qualified persons—being those travel concessions as are defined in the existing legislation. As in the case of municipal transport undertakings, my proposals do not make it mandatory for company operators to grant concessions. They are permissive powers.
Secondly, it enables local authorities, as defined in the existing legislation, to contribute in respect of their own qualified persons towards the cost of concessions granted by either municipal transport undertakings or company operators. Under existing legislation there are two major anomalies. The first is that local authorities, whether operating transport undertakings or not, have no power to contribute towards the cost of travel concessions granted by company operators. Thus, the benefits of the existing legislation are barred to a large proportion of the population whose areas are served only by company operators. I submit that it is quite illogical and unreasonable that Parliament should tolerate a system where benefits such as travel concessions are available in one place and not available in another. It arises through mere historical accident in that in one place a municipality operates its own transport undertaking while in another a company operator provides those services. Accordingly, my proposals will enable any local authority, as defined in existing legislation, to come to an arrangement with a company operator to grant travel concessions and for the local authority to make payment out of the general rate fund
The second major anomaly in the existing legislation arises from Section 1(4) of the Act of 1955. In short, this enables a local authority to contribute towards the cost incurred by a municipal transport undertaking in granting travel


concessions, but it limits this contribution to the costs of operating the concession in the area of the contributing local authority only. May I quote the example of my own constituency—and I am as human as anyone else in the Chamber in wishing to quote my own constituency. The Newcastle City Council operates a transport undertaking in its own area and also in the area of six other local authorities.
If one of those six authorities wants Newcastle Corporation to grant travel facilities to qualified persons in that outside authority, the latter can contribute only towards the cost of the concessions for that part of the journey wholly in that outside area. It cannot do what is obviously sensible, which is to contribute in respect of its own qualified persons for travel concessions to apply throughout the whole area of the Newcastle transport services.
This is a very real restriction and particularly exacerbates the situation where, under municipal rehousing programmes, residents who have long enjoyed travel concessions in Newcastle are rehoused outside the boundaries, and immediately lose their travel concessions.
One of the outside authorities in whose area Newcastle Corporation operates is Newburn Urban District Council, part of my constituency, which has a population of more than 30,000. So far as I can ascertain, the number of men over 65 years of age and women over 60—that is, "qualified persons" under the existing legislation—is in the region of 4,000. In addition, adjacent to my constituency, in the Hexham constituency, is an overspill estate, Newbiggin Hall Estate, which was built by Newcastle Corporation and on which I estimate there are 500 old people, all of whom were formerly City residents enjoying this

travel concession. None of them now enjoys it. In fact, we have the situation in my constituency, and in this overspill estate, in which well over 4,000 old people are being deprived of travel concessions which it was firmly intended by my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central should apply to them when he so persistently advocated that legislation.
I have referred to my constituency, but I am sure that the examples I have quoted could be repeated throughout Britain. I know, for example, that it happens in Bristol and Exeter. There are authorities which are using these anomalies as a reason for not granting even the concessions which it would now be possible for them to give. For this, if for no other reason, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport should look sympathetically at the position I have stated. While I appreciate that she is at present engaged on an urgent investigation into the operation of the 1964 Act, with a view to amendment if this is deemed necessary, I suggest that the Bill which I seek leave to introduce should receive her assistance, even though amendments may be necessary following the completion of her review.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bob Brown, Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, Mr. Albert Booth, Mr. John Ellis, and Mr. Alan Lee Williams.

TRAVEL CONCESSIONS

Bill to remove certain restrictions on the power of local authorities to make arrangements for the granting of travel concessions, and to enable road passenger transport undertakings to make such arrangements, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 3rd March, and to be printed. [Bill 173.]

Orders of the Day — LAND COMMISSION BILL

Order for consideration of Lords Amendments read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Lords Amendments be now considered.—[Mr. Willey.]

4.0 p.m.

Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames): I understand that this is a debatable motion. My objection to it is confined to the word "now". These Amendments are extremely important and should certainly be considered, but the point to which I direct the attention of the House is whether they should be "now" considered.
The House will know that the Bill received its Third Reading in another place on Thursday, that owing to the procedure of another place that stage involved the incorporation there of very important Amendments, that the Amendments made in another place were received here on Friday and that, owing, no doubt, to the haste with which this matter has been conducted, they were erroneously issued, misprinted and had to be reissued. My copy did not reach me until Monday.
We are confronted with four pages of Lords Amendments and eight pages of proposed Commons Amendments to Lords Amendments on what is undoubtedly the most complicated Bill of this Session, without our having had a proper opportunity to consider the complex issues raised by the Lords Amendments or to take the advice of the professional and technical bodies outside which could help us with these problems.
I invite the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the wise and sensible comments made by a predecessor of his, Lord Silkin, who made it clear that the Government had got into a panic about this, that there was really no hurry whatever and that the Government would be wise to take time at this stage further to consider the issues involved.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Was the noble Lord to whom the right hon. Member is referring speaking on behalf of the Government?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir.

Mr. Speaker: Then the right hon. Gentleman is not in order in referring to that.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I was deliberately, for the reason you must have in mind, Mr. Speaker, not quoting. I was referring to the substance of the noble Lord's wise observations.

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that even a quotation in oratio oblique would be out of order.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I will only say that the wisdom of the noble Lord to whom I referred is such that all who know him would assume that he would take this view on this problem. I am sure that on that I shall carry with me, if only as filial piety, the view of the Patronage Secretary.
My argument is unanswerably sound. It is that there is absolutely no need to have the appointed day on 6th April and to rush the Bill through all its stages in this House to meet that target. There is no urgency at all. The House of Commons has been very helpful to the present Government on previous Measures where there really has been some practical necessity to meet a timetable. I do not think that the Minister will dispute that. But there is no such problem here. To press this Measure through at this pace will only involve the right hon. Gentleman in infinitely more difficulties than he need face, as well as causing difficulties to hon. Members.
I do not know why the Government think it desirable to do this at a time when they are driving the House very hard, keeping us here most of the night on other legislation—at a time when they have been driven to resort to the farcial procedure of morning sittings—because they have made a mess of their legislative arrangements. We are at least entitled—and this argument is based on the word "now"—to know why the Lords Amendments should be now considered and why the right hon. Gentleman will not accept the alternative of putting off the appointed day to the autumn, giving a chance for technical and professional opinion outside to understand the Measure, express views on it and advise those of us who are interested so that we may debate the Bill more effectively. At


the lowest, the House is at least entitled to an explanation.

Mr. Graham Page: I support the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). Hon. Members and the public generally have been put in great difficulty because of the short period between another place deliberating on the Bill and those deliberations being brought back here. This is a very complicated Measure and it is difficult to understand, without spending a good deal of time on the subject, even the Amendments made to it in another place. We could have been given much longer in which to consider the issues involved, and we shall wish to return to this subject when debating the Amendments.
Meantime, it is right that we should register our protest now. This procedure is not only inconvenient and causing great hardship to many people in the professions who will have to administer the Measure. It is equally inconvenient to hon. Members, who must consider it in such a rush. We are bound to make mistakes, when working at such speed, and we are bound to cause litigation hereafter if we do not have time in which to consider each page of the Bill fully.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot discuss each page of the Bill fully. We can discuss only the Amendments.

Mr. John Peyton: I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston - upon - Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) in the eloquent and brief plea that he made for the Lords Amendments to be considered not now but later. The Government are always telling us that they want their legislation in a hurry, but they never give the reasons why. As one who has just emerged from a prolonged consideration of one of the Government's more unpleasant Measures, the Iron and Steel Bill, I assure the House that we endeavoured at all stages of that Measure to extract from the Government the answers to two questions; first, what were their intentions in regard to the industry —their plan—and, secondly, the reasons for the hurry. On neither point were we ever satisfied.
Because of the discussion on the Iron and Steel Bill, I have, up to now—except

for one occasion—been unable to express my opinions on this revolting and complicated Measure. Like my right hon. Friend, I have had a brief look at the Amendments, but not having had a chance to take part in the earlier stages of the Bill, I find myself under a grave disadvantage. Those professional people who I have been able to consult on the subject have all expressed themselves in the same way; namely, that the Measure is of such intolerable complexity that they are unable to understand what it means.
If reforms of a doctrinaire order are to be foisted down the throat of the nation, the least the Minister can do is to grease the wheels with a little courtesy and consideration for those who do not agree with him and for those who are intimately concerned with the operation of the Bill.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will have the courtesy to acknowledge that a few days' delay, while the import of these Amendments is being fully considered and digested, not only by us but by those outside who are intimately concerned with this matter, would be of great help. The right hon. Gentleman would do well to extend that courtesy to Parliament.

Mr. John Farr: Further to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), I am worried about whether the Government have had time properly to consider the Lords Amendments, many of which—indeed, all of which—have met with universal approval throughout the country.
I could give many illustrations of the comments that have been made by experts on these matters. Suffice to say that they are united in praising the Lords Amendments, and the way in which great consideration and care, without political bias, was given by their Lordships in considering the Bill. They have unanimously advised Her Majesty's Government to give time for careful consideration of what has been declared universally to have been an improvement in the Bill. Today we have those Lords Amendments before us, but the Government are rejecting the vast majority of them out of hand.
I ask for more time to be given, not only for hon. Members on this side of the


House to consider the implications of these Amendments, but also for hon. Members opposite and the Minister to consider whether he should give further consideration to them. In his dictatorial shuffling of the Bill willy-nilly through the House, he is not only upsetting Conservative hon. Members but the vast majority of ordinary decent people in the country.

Mr. Richard Body: I wish to add a word in support of this protest. Some of us, like the Minister and his colleagues, may have been able to give undivided attention to this Bill, but, although we do that, we try also to consult people who are not able to give their undivided attention to the Bill. I am thinking of numerous chartered surveyors, solicitors and others who have to consider how the Bill will affect them and how these Amendments would improve or make the Bill work. They have not had time in the last few days or weeks to digest these proposed changes and to give us the benefit of their views and ideas on how the Amendments will affect them and the country.
If the right hon. Gentleman is to impose this Bill on millions of owner-occupiers, countless people will be affected. For that reason alone I urge him to give thought to this protest and to concede on this, if on nothing else, that there should be more time to enable us to consult with some of those who will advise many who will be affected.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: I am bewildered and not a little concerned about these exchanges. I suppose that I must declare an interest as I am connected with organisations which will have to implement the Bill when it becomes an Act. From talking with some of my colleagues who will have to administer the Act, I had formed the view that generally agreement had been reached whereby the appointed day would not be until next October.

Mr. Speaker: We cannot discuss the appointed day. We are discussing when we shall consider the Lords Amendments.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: I wanted to lead on to that. Obviously because this has not been agreed and is not a fact, the Government want to rush the discussion on these Amendments. It is clear that

many points of view were not taken into account when the Bill was before us in Committee. If the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues give the impression that they are rushing this matter in order to get the Bill operating on a day which is much too soon, they will not get co-operation from those concerned nor the results which they wish. The Measure will not work in many instances, but certain parts might have been allowed to trickle through if the Government had the good will and co-operation of those who have to work on this matter. That will not happen if the appearance is given that it is being pushed through to arrive at some date arbitrarily fixed by the Government.
I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, for the good of the Bill itself, to go slow and to give the House a chance to consider what the Lords propose.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: I support the view expressed that we should not consider the Lords Amendments this afternoon, I wish to add one or two further reasons which I hope will convince the right hon. Gentleman before this debate is concluded.
It is an extremely short time since the Third Reading was given to the Bill in another place and we have not had time to consult our colleagues there to find exactly the meaning of these Amendments. I do not think that in any part of the House there would be disagreement that this is one of the most complicated Bills with which the House has had to deal. I should have thought that a much longer period than is normally allowed should elapse before we deal with these complicated Amendments.
I have been participating in debates on the Iron and Steel Bill and have had very little time to consult noble Lords and to go through these Amendments in detail with them to find what should be our attitude towards them. In the limited time which has been available, I have found it extremely difficult even to locate the Lords Amendments in the relevant parts of HANSARD because the Lords have a different procedure from ours and there is no easy way of finding a particular Amendment.
4.15 p.m.
From my point of view there is another difficulty. A very important meeting,


your own conference on electoral law, Mr. Speaker, is being held this afternoon at half-past Four. Obviously I cannot be in two places at once. I shall have to make the decision in about a quarter of an hour whether to stay here and take part in debates on the Lords Amendments or to go upstairs and take part in the equally important discussions in Mr. Speaker's Conference.
It would be a consideration if the right hon. Gentleman would agree to defer the debate to a later date in order to give us time to consult noble Lords and also to talk to people outside to ascertain their views. Not only the ordinary people will be affected, but learned professions, whose members have been writing to me and saying that the Bill is absolute double-dutch to them. In view of all these circumstances we should do well to defer this debate until a later date.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: The case has been put from these benches with overwhelming conviction and plausibility. I want only to add a very short comment, because I am sure the House will want to come to a decision soon on this matter, particularly the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), who has an embarrassing choice of duties imposed on him to be made in a short time.
These Lords Amendments are exceptionally unusual. They are without precedent, at any rate in my experience of this House—which, incidentally, is of exactly the same length as that of the Minister and the Leader of the House. These Lords Amendments, apart from the other matters which they raise, include the omission of 58 complicated Clauses and 10 complicated Schedules. Those are matters each and all of which will have to be canvassed presumably by the House in the course of consideration of whether the Lords were right to omit them and whether the right hon. Gentleman is right to propose their restoration.
Has the right hon. Gentleman any precedent for this? If he has not one immediately in mind, no doubt his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House can help him. He is already anticipating that suggestion and whispering into his ear some supplementary helpful points. We await with interest to find whether

they sound as well spoken fortissimo by the Minister as pianissimo by himself.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: And with about the same audibility.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: And with about the same audibility, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) suggests. Not only are the 58 Clauses and 10 Schedules of great complexity, but the House will recall that some of those Schedules were tabled at the last moment when this House last had an opportunity of considering the matter. Therefore, they have never been properly considered by this House and they come to us virtually for the first time today.
With all these considerations in mind, and having regard to the very formidable tasks laid upon the House in the few days in which these Amendments have been available while seeking also to follow the provisions and procedures on the Iron and Steel Bill, surely it would be equitable that there should be a longer time for consideration of this matter, for the benefit of the House—which is something —also for the benefit of the Bill—which is something—and for the benefit of the country, which is still more.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: I rise to support the points put by my hon. and right hon. Friends, but before going into detail I wish to congratulate the Minister of State for Scotland on his appointment, because I think this is the first time he has been in the Chamber since then in an official capacity. I very much regret having to take him to task on this his first appearance. No less than 25 per cent. of the Amendments in their Lordships' names now before us come from Scotland and affect Scottish points of law. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), I received this Notice Paper only on Monday.
We on this side of the House have an advantage which the Government do not have by the presence on our benches of an ex-Scottish Law Officer. I refer to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie). I have been able to discuss these various legal points with him and to take his advice on them. He very much regrets that he is not able to be here today. But that is the


only advice which I have been able to obtain because Scotland is some way from Westminster. I have been unable to consult various other professional interests. For these reasons and reasons which my hon. and right hon. Friends have already given, I have hope that the Government will think again on this matter.

Sir Stephen McAdden: I shall detain the House for only a moment or two in order to add my small voice to what has been said. I hope that the Minister will realise—if he has not done so already, I am sure that he will now—that this is not an ordinary Bill. It is a most unusual Bill in the sense that no one seems to understand it on the Government or the Opposition benches. To have to consider Lords Amendments to a Bill which hardly anyone understands makes the matter even more complicated.
It may be thought that on both sides of the House there are hon. Members learned in the law who might at least make a pretence of understanding the Bill and that we should leave it to them to consider the Lords Amendments with the legal wisdom at their disposal. But the great majority of hon. Members are not learned in the law. Even though they have a great affection and respect for their colleagues so trained, they do not want to put the whole responsibility for considering this matter on to their colleagues in the legal profession. It is only right that we should have the opportunity of consulting our constituents who wish to understand a little of what is intended. Before we are dragooned into consideration of the Lords Amendments, we should have an opportunity for consultation and advice which is only fair for hon. Members. I hope that the Minister will agree that this argument is plausible and will give way.

The Minister of Land and Natural Resources (Mr. Frederick Willey): The arguments have been forcibly put, but they have not been put very sensibly. The point raised by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) is one that afflicts all busy Members of the House. If one is busy in Parliament, it is extremely difficult to attend at the same time to all the duties to which one is called. That is unavoidable.
On the issue of consideration of the Lords Amendments, I have taken note

of the fact that today's business was announced in the business statement on Thursday of last week, when no question about it was raised. As far as I know—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: At the time the business statement was made on Thursday, some of the Amendments to the Bill had not yet been put into the Bill in another place.

Mr. Willey: Had the right hon. Gentleman felt strongly about the matter, that is something which he could have raised at the time. [Interruption.] I merely observe that when the announcement of this week's business was made no objection was taken, and as far as I know no objection has been taken subsequently.
As to consideration of the Bill, I may be wrong, but I do not anticipate the House having any great difficulty in discussing the Lords Amendments which are before the House. The Bill has had a protracted discussion in both Houses. Discussion of it has not been hurried. The closure was never moved or suggested in the proceedings in this House, neither has there been any suggestion in another place that consideration of the Bill should be in any way expedited. It has been fully considered. In fact, the matters which we will subsequently be discussing later this afternoon are matters which have been considered during our discussions on the Bill.
I hope, therefore, that subject to what the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) appears to be wishing to say, we will be able to proceed with our consideration of the Lords Amendments.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Will the Minister be good enough to deal with this point? When he said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) that no objection was raised last Thursday, my right hon. Friend pointed out that consideration of the Bill in another place was not then finished. Does the Minister's case rest on the assumption that my right hon. Friend should be able to prophesy not only the outcome of the debate in another place, but also the fact that, however reasonable the Amendments of another place might be, they would be proposed to be rejected in toto by the Minister?

Mr. Willey: I am probably right in assuming that the right hon. Gentleman prophesied correctly.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 188, Noes 139.

Division No. 252.]
AYES
[4.29 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Harper, Joseph
Oswald, Thomas


Alldritt, Walter
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Allen, Scholefield
Haseldine, Norman
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Anderson, Donald
Henig, Stanley
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Archer, Peter
Hooley, Frank
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Armstrong, Ernest
Horner, John
Pavitt, Laurence


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pentland, Norman


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Howarth, Henry (Wellingborough)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Barnett, Joel
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Bence, Cyril
Howie, W.
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Binns, John
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Probert, Arthur


Bishop, E. S.
Hunter, Adam
Randall, Harry


Blackburn, F.
Hynd, John
Rankin, John


Booth, Albert
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Redhead, Edward


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Bradley, Tom
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b' n&amp;St. P'cras, S.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Brooks, Edwin
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Brown, Bob (N"c'tle-upon-Tyne, w.)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rose, Paul


Cant, R. B.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Carmichael, Neil
Kelley, Richard
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Chapman, Donald
Kenyon, Clifford
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)


Coe, Denis
Lawson, George
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Coleman, Donald
Leadbitter, Ted
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Concannon, J. D.
Ledger, Ron
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Lestor, Miss Joan
Skeffington, Arthur


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Small, William


Dalyell, Tam
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Snow, Julian


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Lipton, Marcus
Spriggs, Leslie


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lomas, Kenneth
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Loughlin, Charles
Swain, Thomas


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Symonds, J. B.


Delargy, Hugh
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Taverne, Dick


Dewar, Donald
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Dickens, James
McBride, Neil
Thornton, Ernest


Dobson, Ray
McCann, John
Tinn, James


Doig, Peter
MacColl, James
Tomney, Frank


Driberg, Tom
Macdonald, A. H.
Urwin, T. W.


Dunn, James A.
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Dunnett, Jack
Mackintosh, John P.
Walker, Harold (Doncester)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Maclennan, Robert
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Weitzman, David


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Wellbeloved, James


Ellis, John
MacPherson, Malcolm
Whitaker, Ben


Ennals, David
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Ensor, David
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Whitlock, William


Fernyhough, E.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Wilkins, W. A.


Finch, Harold
Mapp, Charles
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Mason, Roy
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mendelson, J. J.
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Floud, Bernard
Millan, Bruce
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Foley, Maurice
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Forrester, John
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Fowler, Gerry
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Woof, Robert


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Moyle, Roland
Yates, Victor


Gardner, Tony
Neal, Harold
Zilliacus, K.


Ginsburg, David
Newens, Stan



Gourlay, Harry
Oakes, Gordon
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gregory, Arnold
Ogden, Eric
Mr. Charles Grey and Mr. Ioan L. Evans.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
O'Malley, Brian



Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Orme, Stanley



Griffiths, Will (Exchange)






NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Body, Richard
Bullus, Sir Eric


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Bossom, Sir Clive
Campbell, Gordon


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Cary, Sir Robert


Baker, W. H. K.
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Channon, H. P. G.


Batsford, Brian
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Clark, Henry


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col. Sir Walter
Clegg, Walter


Bell, Ronald
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Cooke, Robert


Bessell, Peter
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Costain, A. P.


Biffen, John
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)




Currie, G. B. H.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Prior, J. M. L.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Jopling, Michael
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Digby, Simon Wingfield
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Doughty, Charles
Kitson, Timothy
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Eden, Sir John
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Royle, Anthony


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Russell, Sir Ronald


Eyre, Reginald
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Sharples, Richard


Farr, John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Fisher, Nigel
Longden, Gilbert
Sinclair, Sir George


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lubbock, Eric
Smith, John


Fortescue, Tim
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Stodart, Anthony


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Goodhart, Philip
Maddan, Martin
Temple, John M.


Goodhew, Victor
Marten, Neil
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Gower, Raymond
Maude, Angus
Thorpe, Jeremy


Grant, Anthony
Mawby, Ray
Tilney, John


Grant-Ferris, R.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Gresham Cooke, R.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Grieve, Percy
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Monro, Hector
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
More, Jasper
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Walters, Dennis


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Ward, Dame Irene


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Murton, Oscar
Weatherill, Bernard


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Hastings, Stephen
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Hill, J. E. B.
Onslow, Cranley
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Holland, Philip
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Worsley, Marcus


Hornby, Richard
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)



Howell, David (Guildford)
Percival, Ian
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Hunt, John Hutchison, Michael Clark
Peyton, John Pink, R. Bonner
Mr. Francis Pym and Mr. R. W. Elliott.


Iremonger, T. L.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

Clause 6.—(GENERAL POWERS OF ACQUISITION.)

Lords Amendment: No. 1, in page 5, line 43, leave out:
25 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1950
and insert:
34 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Will it be possible, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to take at the same time Lords Amendment No. 18, in Clause 13, page 15, line 7?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): If that is for the convenience of the House.

Mr. Graham Page: indicated assent.

Dr. Mabon: These two Amendments are consequential on the passing of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1966, which received Royal Assent after this Bill went to the Lords. Accordingly, we have to

make this adjustment. I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 2, in page 6, line 1, after "subsection" insert:
and subject to the next following subsection".

Mr. Willey: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It might meet the convenience of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if we discuss the following four Amendments with this one.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Would that be for the convenience of the House?

Mr. Graham Page: indicated assent.

Mr. Willey: There is no great difference between the sides of the House on this Amendment. The Opposition in another place made it clear that they accepted the principle of the second appointed day and accepted that the Commission should have wider powers. They have afforded us an opportunity to look again at this matter, but for reasons which, I am sure, the hon. Member for


Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) will appreciate, we are unable to agree with the Lords on these Amendments.
I do not pretend that the Opposition are wholly satisfied with Clause 6. The hon. Member and his colleagues concentrated their attention earlier on subsections (1), (2) and (3), which deal with the powers of the Commission, and I am certain that they were right to do so. Subsection (1) defines the powers of the Commission and subsection (3) defines the conditions under which those powers can be exercised.
In the provisions of the Clause we provided machinery for a first and a second appointed day, which introduces a first phase. Obviously, within the first phase the scope of the Commission's operations is necessarily limited. We therefore introduced a concept of priorities with qualifications, at that stage, upon the exercise of the powers of the Commission. We provided that in any case the Commission could buy on behalf of local authorities if they so wished, that in any case it could buy for concessionary Crownhold, and that in any case it could buy to promote early development or development as a whole. We felt it right that during that early stage the Commission should indicate the grounds on which it was exercising its powers. Subsection (4) does not otherwise circumscribe the powers or purposes of the Commission. It defines priorities. As the hon. Member for Crosby will recollect, I said in Standing Committee that I could not think of any powers which would not be contained in subsection (4). [Interruption.] I am making a distinction between powers and the qualifications which are put upon them.
The importance of subsection (4) is the emphasis which it puts upon purchasing land for development at an early date. But obviously, as the Commission extends its scope of operations, the emphasis on priorities becomes less and less important. As the Commission extends the scope of its operations, there will be less emphasis on bringing land forward for early development than on purchasing land well in advance of development—bringing it forward in an orderly fashion as and when it is required for development, and—I know that this can be contentious and provokes the Opposition—

also for securing a greater share of the development value.
When we are looking forward to the work of the Commission—this was emphasised in another place—we have to think of the context within which the Commission will be working. We have to think of the fact that between now and the end of the century we have to build every year the equivalent of a city the size of Bristol. We have to recognise that every year there will be nearly 500,000 extra people to house. We provided for a second appointed day when the priorities indicated by subsection (4) would be no longer relevant and would be removed. I am sure that this is the right way to tackle this.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: The right hon. Gentleman keeps referring to priorities. There is no mention of priorities in the Bill. It is not a statutory term at all. Subsection (4) refers to the purposes and limits the powers which are granted in subsection (3). There is a clear difference between them. It is not a matter of priorities; it is a matter of the powers and purposes within which the Commission can on those two respective dates lawfully proceed. Why should he seek to gloss over the difference between two subsections?

Mr. Willey: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is in error. Subsection (3) imposes conditions on the exercise of the power granted to the Commission. It is these conditions which I regard as important. In the light of what I have said, obviously the better course when one reaches the second appointed day is to remove the qualifications which we have made under subsection (4). We are no longer regarding the Commission as being limited in the scope of its operations. It will have built up its staff and extended its operations.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: The right hon. Gentleman has not dealt with my point. Does he or does he not agree that to say in a Statute that a body shall not have powers to do something except for certain specified purposes is precisely the same as saying that it shall have power to do it for only those purposes? Therefore the subsection deals with powers, as does the other, but it is limiting those powers as one can see by comparing subsection (4) with subsection (3).
The right hon. Gentleman is trying to do away with the suggested constitutional safeguard which another place has suggested.

Mr. Willey: I described them as priorities. Subsection (4) imposes priorities. In fact, it makes qualifications upon the exercise of the power which is provided in the previous subsections. That power is exercised subject to the conditions in subsection (3), and it is the conditions which I regard as being all-important.
This is not contentious. It is not an issue between us—as the Opposition said in another place—that we should provide for the second appointed day. We are discussing the way in which we should provide for this. The Lords Amendment brings in the concept of additional purposes. I will listen to whatever views right hon. Gentlemen have, but I believe that the Amendment brings in an element of uncertainty which might very well make the Bill much more difficult of construction. It brings in an element of uncertainty not only one way.
I am quite satisfied that additional purposes would be construed beyond those contained in the first three subsections of the Bill. I have made it quite clear that I regard the Commission as working within planning designations and decisions. I have no wish to extend its powers beyond that, but I believe that the present Amendment is certainly open to that construction. It certainly brings in unnecessarily an element of uncertainty.
4.45 p.m.
I want to take up an issue which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has often raised—and I share his anxiety —about the position of the individual citizen and the fact, often mentioned by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), that the Commission is a non-elected body. As I have emphasised repeatedly, the Commission works within the framework of planning decisions. It works within the framework of decisions by elected bodies and Ministers responsible to Parliament. Both right hon. Gentlemen have emphasised—and again, I am not quarrelling about this; I am asking them to bear this point in mind—that in recognising the difficulty in bringing land forward for development, we should pay attention to the planning procedures. I

concede this. I ask them to be equally careful that in so doing they do not prejudice the rights of individual citizens, because decisions about land use do in fact affect the use of land. I hope that if we turn to the refashioning of planning procedures jointly, we will see that the individual is not unduly and unnecessarily prejudiced.
We are as sensitive to the rights of individuals as are the Opposition. Having said where we ought to direct our attention, I regard this and the consequential Amendments as misconceived, as introducing an element of uncertainty which will make the Bill much more difficult to operate.

Mr. Graham Page: The right hon. Gentleman tried to pass off this Amendment as being of no very great importance. He said that there was not much issue between the two sides of the House. He said that the Opposition were not wholly satisfied with subsection (4) of Clause 6. That was the understatement of the week. Clause 6 is what I might call the main objects Clause of Part II. It puts the Land Commission into the property market as a purchaser, but not as a competitive dealer in land. It puts the Commission into the market as a manipulator by force, by compulsion. Why should compulsion be necessary and why, if compulsion is to be used, should not the Commission say and have a purpose for which it is using it?
One might argue that the Bill is back to front, that Part III should have come before Part II, because Part III creates a levy, and a levy means a large payment for selling property. Will anybody sell property if he has to pay for the privilege? As The Times put it very potently in a leading article yesterday:
Because of their fear …
that is, the Government's fear
… that the levy will restrict the supply of land on offer, they have given the Commission large and indefinite powers of acquisition under the Bill.
The Times leader added:
In fact a combination of sensible planning policies and market forces would do most of what is necessary to bring land forward.
That is a very good expression of the Opposition's policy towards the Bill. So, for the sake of the levy, we are having a


Commission with large and indefinite powers of acquisition, to use the phrase in The Times leader, and Clause 6 gives those powers. This Amendment by another place is particularly concerned with the fact that the powers are indefinite after a certain time. They are indefinite after a time, because they can then be exercised without any purpose behind them. After the second appointed day, there needs to be no purpose, or any purpose—whichever way one likes to look at it—in the exercise of the powers.
The Lords Amendment seeks to retain some purposes, those already mentioned in subsection (4), after the second appointed day and it seeks to permit others, if the Government seek the permission of Parliament to introduce other purposes, seeking that permission by an Order. As the Bill stands, after the first appointed day and until the second appointed day there are three prerequisites for compulsory acquisition. I am not sure whether I am agreeing or disagreeing with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith). Whichever I am doing, I do it with great respect. However, I think that there are three quite separate stages towards the compulsory acquisition.
First, the Land Commission has to be satisfied about the kind of land which it desires to acquire. This appears in subsection (1) which says that in the opinion of the Land Commission it is land suitable for material development. Secondly, there is the condition of the planning of the land, of plans for the land. That comes in subsection (3) which provides that there must be planning permission, or allocation in a development plan, or that the land must be designated for compulsory purchase as part of a new town, or that it must be within a clearance area and so on. This is what I call the plans for the land. The third prerequisite to compulsory purchase is the purpose of the purchase. That comes in subsection (4). There are four alternative purposes —it must be for material development, or for development as a whole with other properties, or for use with some other authority with compulsory purchase powers, or for concessionary Crownhold
It is the third category which, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, is the

constitutional safeguard. But after the second appointed day, if the Bill remains without the Amendment, that constitutional safeguard will have gone. The Land Commission will then acquire land —that is to say, it will force an owner to sell his land—for any purpose at all.
Thank heavens for the integrity of the Civil Service in this country! We might otherwise suggest that the Commission might be providing for itself country villas or town flats. It is true that if a later Amendment is accepted, it will have to state the reason for which it is acquiring the land, but if it said, "Our reason is merely that we are buying a country cottage for the Parliamentary Secretary", there will be nothing illegal about that. Of coure, I use exaggerated examples to illustrate the point, but the absurdity of the examples themselves forces one to question why should there not be purposes stated for which compulsory powers are to be justified. What is there to hide? I can think of some purposes not so absurd, but far more sinister.
When they introduced the Bill originally, the Government claimed—and they still allow people to assume this—that the Land Commission and the levy would bring down the price of land. No commodity was ever made cheaper by taxing it. Of course, by selling its own land cheaply, concessionary Crownhold land which it had bought at market value, the Commission might bring down the price of a small part of land. That would be easy. The Commission would borrow £45 million from the taxpayer and use it to buy land at full market price and sell it at cut prices, rather like supermarkets selling loss leaders. But if that sort of trading expands it has the effect on the rest of the market of depressing the prices of similar goods.
If the Minister desires, he can direct the Commission to buy many acres of land in a certain area at market price and sell at less than market price in order to flood the market in any particular district and to bring down the price of land there. I can appreciate that it would not be very politic to state that as the purpose of the acquisition.
But is that what the Government intend to do? In order to carry out their promise to get cheaper land, are they to flood the market with cheap land at the taxpayers' expense in order to deflate the


price of land generally? Is that one reason, or the major reason, why the Commission will not be required to state the purposes for which it requires land after the second appointed day?
If accepted, the Amendment would leave intact after the second appointed day all the three prerequisites—that the Commission must be satisfied about the kind of property, the planning conditions of the property, and the purposes for which it is to be purchased. If the Government want other purposes to be inserted, then they can get them, if the Amendment is accepted, by an Order subject to the Affirmative Resolution procedure.
I cannot see why the right hon. Gentleman wants to resist this Amendment. What he is doing is insisting on breaking a fundamental principle of English law. Never before has Parliament by solemn Statute given a public authority power to exercise compulsory powers of purchase against a citizen without stating the purpose for which it requires the property, not even in war time. In war time the purposes had to be stated as being for the defence of the Realm. Under common law, apart from Statute, the Crown had, and, I suppose, still has, a residue of such power, but Parliament has fought it for centuries and successfully fought it until the right hon. Gentleman took office.
As it is with Crownhold, so it is with the kind of land which we are now considering. Constitutionally, we are going back to where we started generations ago with seizure at the will of the Executive without any expression of the purpose for which the property is wanted. Once this legislative compulsion has been granted to the Commission to grab land for any purpose, or for none, how can the Government refuse this sort of power to any other public authority? The first Private Bill which comes forward after this legislation, perhaps from Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh, will be a demand for exactly the same powers of compulsory purchase without stating the purpose. The National Coal Board will be next and then the electricity boards, until it gets down to the Arts Council demanding powers of this sort.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: And the G.L.C.

Mr. Page: Indeed, the G.L.C. If there is a public body which can seize a man's

house, as well as any other of his properties, without stating a purpose, a man will have become nothing more than a tenant at will, at the will of the Land Commission. The land will be his no longer with the threat always present. "Breathes there a man with soul so dead who never to himself has said, 'It is not my land, it is the Land Commission's land' ". In ease the right hon. Gentleman does not remember that the title of that poem, which I have rather mangled, it is the "Lay of the last Minister". It should be renamed, "Lay of the last Minister of Land and Natural Resources".

5.0 p.m.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: In the course of his observations, the right hon. Gentleman referred to an element of uncertainty. I do not think that there was any element of uncertainty before he got up to speak, but I can hardly say the same for the position at the end of his speech, for he seemed to introduce the maximum degree of uncertainty and confusion into the situation within a reasonably short space of time.
I would have thought that there was no doubt either as to the effect of Clause 6 as it stood, or as to the effect of Clause 6 as it could be if the Lords Amendment were agreed to. As the Clause stands, between the first and second appointed days, the Land Commission can acquire laud only for certain specified purposes, the four specified purposes set out in subsection (4).
After the second appointed day, the Land Commission will have a much increased power of purchase so long as it satisfies one or other of the conditions specified in subsection (3), which forms a sort of very wide outer framework within which the Commission must operate after the second appointed day. If effect is given to the Lords Amendment the Land Commission would retain the right to acquire land within any of the purposes specified under subsection (4), both between the first and second appointed day and, indeed, after the second appointed day. In addition to that, after the second appointed day, it could acquire land for extended purposes if it got the authority of Parliament to do so.
That would be the position, providing what my hon. Friend the Member for


Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has properly called a constitutional safeguard. If the Lords Amendment is rejected, the situation will be that after the second appointed day land can be acquired by the Commission without specification of any purpose so long as it comes within the very wide outer framework of subsection (3), and the House can see how wide that outer framework is by looking at the first two conditions in subsection (3,a) and (3,b).
If there is a planning permission for carrying out material development not wholly implemented, it does not matter on whose application that permission has been given. It need not necessarily be the owner so long as the requisite notice has been served. That is quite sufficient to satisfy the conditions within this very wide outer framework. In subsection (3,b), the Commission will get a power in respect of any land zoned in a development plan for any purposes which the Minister might prescribe at his discretion. One can hardly envisage any wider framework within which the Commission's powers would operate unless there is some constitutional safeguard such as the Lords Amendment.
So far from this matter not raising issues of any great importance, as the right hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest, it puts a very revealing spotlight on the attitude of the Government to constitutional safeguards and the basic rights of the citizen. The House should always approach these matters against the background that, in a sophisticated community, compulsory acquisition is a necessity, but a regrettable necessity, particularly for the unfortunate citizen whose land is proposed to be taken. Therefore, regard should always be had to five main principles.
First, power of acquisition should only be exercised by bodies with an elective or democratic responsibility. Secondly, it should only be exercised for purposes clearly falling within the public interest. Thirdly, there should be a full right of objection and inquiry by quasi-judicial process. Fourthly, although Ministers answerable to Parliament must be the final arbiters of what may be the public interest, nevertheless insofar as there are legal aspects to this matter, as there frequently are, the jurisdiction of the courts

should not be ousted. Fifthly, compensation should be fair if acquisition is persisted in.
In this case, as we are all agreed, the first of these criteria is not satisfied. The Commission has not any democratic or elective responsibilities. That makes it all the more important that the second criterion, the one with which we are primarily concerned now, should be fully met. That is to say these powers should be given only for matters demonstrably within the public interest. As the Clause stands and will remain if the Minister has his way, the powers will exist for matters not clearly lying within the public interest.
It is right on every count that the Lords Amendment should be incorporated—right because the outer framework of subsection (3) is so very wide; right because of the nature of the Land Commission in having no elective responsibilities; right because we do not even know the time of the second appointed day; right, above all, because Parliament should not give, least of all to an undemocratic body, the right of compulsory acquisition save only for powers and purposes clearly defined and established as coming within the public interest.

Mr. Peyton: What a dreadful load of muck this Bill still is, and how clever the Government have been to select the present Minister as the one responsible for hauling it through Parliament, because he does it with such an innocent air, so quietly and peacefully. He even suggests that there is no controversy between us on certain points.
The right hon. Gentleman surprises me somewhat. Quite apart from the fact that he said that he was looking forward to the operation of the Commission—a prospect I do not share—he amazed me by saying that we must be careful about the individual citizen, be careful not to prejudice his rights. In the name of conscience, what is this Bill doing except prejudicing the rights of almost every individual citizen in the country and clouding them with uncertainty? 
As if to pile surprise upon surprise, the right hon. Gentleman went on to talk about an element of uncertainty which the Amendment would introduce. He is the sole author of uncertainty. For him to talk in that way is on a par


with chiding us for adding a spoonful of water to an already over-full swimming bath. He is the author of the uncertainty. For him to castigate the Lords Amendment in the name of uncertainty is an insolence quite intolerable.
The Clause turns the gentleman in Whitehall, mythical so far as he is omniscient, into a rogue elephant. It is giving him powers he can exercise after the second appointed day without any purpose having to be expressed. This unfettered right is one which could only be put upon the Statute Book by a party which has no regard for the rights of property and for freedom. I believe that the Minister and the Government responsible for such legislation should be castigated because I do not think that the country has yet begun to wake up to the significance of this horrid Measure. I hope that, when the time comes—I am a merciful man—the Minister's reputation will survive the odium which deserves to be cast upon those responsible for such foul legislation.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: I want to draw attention to only one point in the Minister's conduct which seems to go beyond the normal bounds of what we are accustomed to in complicated Measures of this sort. I should have thought that there was an obligation and responsibility upon him at least to set out the differences between the two sides, and, having done so, to explain why he then thinks that his approach and attitude is superior to that of the Opposition. Exactly the reverse has happened in this case. What he has done is to say that there is virtually no difference of substance between the two sides, that both sides are equally sensitive to the rights of the individual, that the Lords Amendment would prejudice the rights of the individual for mechanical reasons. But this is only a technical matter.
How lucky we are to have my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) to explain the real difference between both sides of the House, because some of us who have not had the benefit of the abstruse discussions in Committee would have thought from what the Minis-

ter says that this was a pure formality and that the Government, in their wisdom, had come to the conclusion that the Lords, no doubt with the best of intentions, had somehow blundered into confusion and produced a situation in which the subject would be much more prejudiced by the Bill as it left them than was the case when the Bill left us.
It is quite clear, even to the meanest and least instructed lay intelligence, after listening to the lucid explanation of my right hon. and learned Friend, that the reverse is the case, and that the requirements of subsection (4a, b, c and d) are to persist after the second appointed day if the Lords have their way, but will lapse if the Minister has his way. I cannot imagine a greater difference of substance and I cannot imagine it to be more deceiving than to say there is none in those circumstances.
That is my point, and it is indicative of the tactics of the Government with this Bill, who have been trying to "wool" the whole thing over. For a great period of the passage of the Bill they have succeeded. It has not been until the last month or so that the country and the Press have woken up to what this Bill really does. The Minister cannot get away with this "wooling-over" attitude in future, and I hope that as we come to each of the Amendments he will can-didly set out the real difference in substance when he moves that the House doth disagree with the Lords in their Amendments because differences of grave substance there certainly are.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: This Bill, if it is passed, will become an Act of tyranny in the country, and it deserves to be called by its proper name—an Act of tyranny. I had never thought that as a British citizen I would live to see the day when the democratically-elected Government would instruct its civil servants to perform acts of theft against the private citizenry of our country. In the many years when I lived in the United States, a land which still holds dear the concept of private property—

Mr. Willey: On a point of order, are we not rather wide of the somewhat narrow point before us on the last Amendment?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): We are getting a little wide of the Amendment. I hope that the hon. Member will keep more narrowly to the point.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Further to that point of order, in my respectful submission, if you have in mind the proposals of the Government in excluding the necessary provisions inserted by another place, my hon. Friends observations are strictly related to what the Government are doing. Naturally the right hon. Gentleman may not like being told this, but it is surely fully in order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: This is a very complex Measure, as I think the House will appreciate. It would be proper if the hon. Member continued, and I will endeavour to keep the point of order as clear as I can, as the debate proceeds.

Sir S. McAdden: May I take it from what you have said that you will be ruling what is in order and what is not and not the Minister who wants to keep the thing quiet?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thought that by implication at least I had made that clear.

Mr. Griffiths: I am glad that the Minister rose to point out how thin-skinned he is. I am glad that he has shown to the House that the charge that I made against him had hit home, where it deserved to hit.
5.15 p.m.
I rise to support this Amendment, because in my judgment it will slightly limit the degree of tyranny which is being imposed by the Bill. It is for this reason that the Amendment is relevant and proper. The Amendment goes to the heart of the matter in that it brings forward the conflict between the two rights at issue, which are the rights of the private individual, on the one hand, and the right, which none of us on this side would ever deny, of society and the State. It is because the Amendment goes to the point of collision between these two rights that it is so important.
The rights of the individual must arise from private property if from anything at all. The people of the country, when they come to appreciate the real significance of this Bill will realise that what

is being taken from them is the ability to say, "This is my land, this is my home, this is my property". In future, unless this Amendment is accepted, they will have to say, "This is no longer my land or my home or my patrimony". They will have to say, "It is someone else's", in this case the property of the Socialist State.
In this Amendment, the other place has gone some way towards allowing the people of this country still to be able to use the phrase, "My land, and home and my patrimony".

Mr. Tony Gardner: I am listening with interest to the hon. Gentleman, who is using very strong language indeed, to see if one could use his argument in relation to the souls who live in this fair capital of ours. Would he like to tell the House how many citizens within the area of the Greater London Council can already say the sort of things that he is saying about property in this sense?

Mr. Griffiths: The point is not so much who can or who does own the land. Every man and woman in this country, if he or she does not own land, aspires to do so, and it is the aspiration that is just as important, and the aspiration is something that we on this side of the House wish to defend and to retain because it is basic to our people.
The other right is the right of society, of the State, in this case represented so ably by the right hon. Gentleman, to take away from the private individual his property if social need requires it. It is surely elementary that it rests with he who will take away a man's property to show why it is necessary, what it is for and why he cannot find some other property in order to achieve the same purpose. If the superior right of the State is to be introduced in order to take away a man's land, then it is up to the State to show why and to say what it is for.
This the Minister is refusing to do. He wants to act—and I am sorry if this is strong language—not just as a thief, but as a thief in the night, in the dark. I warn him that the people of the country are not so dazed and dazzled by what is going on that they will fail in time to realise what is being done to them. I warn him that people will resist, they will


not accept lightly the deprivation of property which he and the Government are visiting upon them. I hope, as he looks at this Amendment he will realise that an attempt is being made, as it has been made through the history of this country, to prevent arbitrary power taking from the private citizen something that he loves and holds dear.

Mr. A. P. Costain: It was significant at the Report stage and it is significant now how few hon. Members opposite wish to support their own Government. I said on Report that they were ashamed of the Bill and not prepared to come and listen, and it is the same today.

Mr. Peyton: Has my hon. Friend observed that even the Government Whip is so ashamed that he has moved to the far end of the bench?

Mr. Costain: I had not noticed that, but it shows how he feels. I have been a Member for nine years, but I never remember a Parliamentary Private Secretary jumping to the defence of the Minister and interrupting the speech of a back bencher opposite, yet that is what the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner) did.
I support everything said by my hon. Friends in defence of the private individual, but I declare my interest here and say that one of the activities of my group is the building of houses. My hon. Friends have dealt adequately with the position of the private individual, so I approach this matter from the point of view of the developer and the safeguards which the other place intended for the protection of the developer.
If the Minister claims that the Bill is a Measure to increase the supply of houses, will he consider the effect of the powers proposed on the work and judgment of the developer? When a developer purchases land for normal development, which the Government say they support, at least by words, he must make a judgment as to whether the land will be arbitrarily taken away from him. I look upon land as raw material, raw stock. Can one imagine B.M.C. starting up a production line to make motor cars in the knowledge that, at an hour's notice, the Government could come along, without giving any reason at all, and take

away the whole of their raw material? Yet this is what is being done here. The position of a developer is made impossible, and there is no compensation given—

Mr. Willey: Will the hon. Gentleman direct himself to the Amendment, which, presumably, he supports, which would provide that
the Commission shall have power to acquire land compulsorily for such purposes in addition to those specified in the last preceding subsection as may be specified in an order made for the purposes of this subsection"?
In other words, they are further powers
than under subsection (4).

Mr. Costain: The Minister's intervention makes my point even stronger. When a developer is making a judgment, he has to consider whether he will be allowed to use his raw material. When we know the condition on which the Government are likely to take that raw material away, we can make a judgment, and the Lords' Amendments would make a very bad condition at least somewhat tolerable, but if the restriction is to be abolished and overall powers are to be given, one might as well cast a dice at a board meeting when one is discussing whether land purchased will remain as one's raw material. So long as these powers remain in the Bill, there is no evidence to permit a proper business judgment to be made.
The Lords' Amendment, at least, gave one a sporting chance of making a judgment, but with these absolute powers, if the land can be taken over without any specification or idea of what it is to be used for, except the whim of the Minister or of the Land Commission, what judgment can one possibly make? Will the right hon. Gentleman come clean on this and not pretend that the Bill is a Measure to get more houses built? It is power to take away land whenever the whim suits him or the Land Commission. That is the objection, and that is why the Lords Amendment should be accepted.

Mr. Walter Clegg: The Minister seemed to imply that there is some protection for the citizen in our planning arrangements. I could not follow that because, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) explained, the Land Commission itself can apply for planning permission. If it


has power to do that and over-rule the wishes of the owner of land when it make an application, what sort of protection for the citizen is that? What will happen in practice, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, is that, provided that the Land Commission serves the necessary notices, which are merely an indication to the owner of the land that it is making an application through the planning authority, the owner of the land will have singularly few rights. He may object, but if the planning authority decides to grant planning permission, he will, as far as I know, have no right to a public inquiry and no right of appeal to the Minister against the granting of planning permission. The rights to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, therefore, are quite illusory.
It is misleading to say that there is any great protection for the citizen in the planning procedures to which the Commission will be subject.
In any event, the great mass of the country—certainly the great bulk of our urban areas—is already covered where there are current development plans. It is clear that the powers of the Commission, unless they are limited in the way proposed by the other place, are far too wide to afford any protection whatever to the citizen.
I am sorry that on Burns Night the Minister of State for Scotland should have left us, not wishing to hear or take part in a debate on freedom.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I am here.

Mr. Clegg: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.

Sir S. McAdden: I should not have intervened in this debate had not the line of the Minister's thinking been given to us by the intervention of his Parliamentary Private Secretary when he sought to extract from my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) how many people there were in the Greater London Council area who owned property of any kind. Apparently, the hon. Gentleman was anxious to establish that there were not many such people, and, presumably, because there were not many, they did not matter. If that is the line of thought actuating the Minister's mind—the P.P.S. and his Minister work

pretty closely together—we have further evidence of how wrong the Government's whole attitude is.
A law is either just or unjust. Apparently, the Government's view is conditioned by the number of people affected. In fact, the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong in thinking that there are only a few. Very many thousands of people not only in the Greater London area but throughout the country are owners of some piece of property, a house or the land upon which it stands. It is quite wrong for that sort of argument to be advanced, and it is quite wrong that the Minister's attitude should be conditioned by a conflict between the haves and have-nots, and, because he thinks that there are more have-nots than haves, he need not bother much about them.
The laws of this country are concerned with justice. The protection of the law is available to all citizens irrespective of whether a large body or a small body of them is affected. In fact, it is a large body, as the Minister will soon realise from the volume of protest coming to him as soon as the public realise how many thousands of people are affected by his iniquitous proposal. He will be drowned in an avalanche of letters from people protesting not only against what he is trying to do but also against the suggestion that, because there are not many affected, no one need bother about them.
Some of these people are the salt of the earth. They deserve support and encouragement. If one is to take at their face value the speeches of right hon. and hon. Members at Labour Party conferences, they have recently, in an attempt to cultivate the middle-class vote, decided to believe in owner-occupation. If they believe in it, let them ensure that people are secure in their occupation and that their property cannot be taken away at the behest of a non-elected body in order to fulfil purposes which have not been defined and which the Minister does not propose to divulge.

Mr. Richard Sharpies: The Bill is being rushed through Parliament because the general public are now becoming aware of what lies behind the Government's thinking and the whole purpose of it. Some of my constituents wrote directly to the Minister and voiced their apprehension about the so-called


simplified procedure which we are now discussing. In a letter dated 1st December, the right hon. Gentleman himself replied to a Mr. Baker, one of my constituents-—he did not send me a copy—and said:
… the Commission's power to buy property does not extend to any house.
Is that true or false, because it seems a part of the whole tactics of the Government in trying to conceal the truth from the people? I have asked the Minister now for a clear statement. Is the statement in the letter to my constituent true or false? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]

5.30 p.m.

Mr. James Allason: Surely we shall have an answer, in view of what has been said on this side of the House? It seems extraordinary that the Minister should stay absolutely silent. I would have thought that he would intervene to answer the rather serious charge which has been made that he has misinformed the public in a letter. I shall willingly give way to him now if he wishes to contradict that point.

Mr. Willey: The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) did not give me notice that he would raise this matter. If he will let me have the letter I shall certainly deal with it.

Mr. Sharples: The letter is signed by the Minister himself and addressed to one of my constituents. Surely he knows what is in it?

Mr. Allason: The question here is whether there is any need to safeguard the citizen. It appears that it is rather necessary to safeguard him from misinformation.
But here we are dealing with the wider question of whether it is necessary to safeguard him in his property rights. The Minister said, "Indication of purpose is of less and less importance", that is, as the Land Commission gets further and further into the saddle. That is a clear indication of the Government's attitude towards safeguarding the citizen.
The Government have consistently maintained that whilst no purpose must be stated after the second appointed day, as under Clause 6(4). because that is abolished, a reason will nevertheless be shown by virtue of a planning permission being in existence. That depends on the wording of Clause 6(3) which refers to

many other things besides planning permission.
The Minister has consistently attempted to give the impression that if there is a planning permission for ten houses to be built in a certain field everyone will know for what reason that field is to be compulsorily acquired. That makes things a great deal too simple. For example, a playing field is in agricultural use. If land is to be taken for a playing field it will be necessary only to show that there is planning permission for agricultural use. There is no need for planning permission in that case, because the existing use is agriculture. On existing property there is clearly already planning permission for use for building, and therefore in an area such as most of Greater London, where there are houses already on the land, those houses can be taken.
I wish to tell the Parliamentary Private Secretary that there are a great number of owner-occupied houses in London, and all of them are now at risk, because the Parliamentary Secretary indicated in Committee that the Land Commission would certainly have powers to purchase compulsorily freehold or owner-occupied houses in London, if the Commission were buying up land in advance of the requirements of the local councils for redevelopment. That means that owner-occupiers in London might well then find themselves the tenants of the Land Commission.
Under Clause 6(3) it is only a matter of planning permission. The mere fact that land lies within the designated area of a new town is sufficient for it to be taken by compulsory purchase. No reason need be given, because the land lies within the designated area of the new town, and under those terms the Land Commission can take it. The fact that a piece of land falls within Clause 6(3) does not indicate a purpose for which the land is to be taken.
We on this side of the House regret that very few Government supporters have been present to hear the debate, because it concerns most important principles. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) said, constitutional safeguards for the basic rights of the citizen are under discussion. I therefore ask my right hon. and hon.


Friends to divide in favour of retaining the Lords Amendment.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources (Mr. Arthur Skeffington): We have heard a series of interesting speeches, some phrased rather extravagantly. There was an occasion during a Finance Bill debate when the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Philip Snowden, said that having listened to some of the speeches he was reminded that the pantomime season was still on. When I listened to one or two speeches by hon. Members opposite and the grotesque implication they saw in this part of the Bill, I thought the same.
Perhaps I can assuage some of the fears and put the position into perspective as the Government see it. There are two ways in which one should look at the Lords' Amendments. One is a narrow technical way, which is ample ground for the Government rejecting them. The Opposition, both here and in another place, have not objected to a second appointed day. They have not suggested that there should not be a second appointed day, as no doubt they have accepted, at any rate for the purpose of their argument so far, the reasoning, originally set out in the White Paper as long ago as September, 1965.
There is always talk about the Bill being rushed through. In fact, there has been more adequate discussion on every section of it than on almost any other land Bill I recall, unlike many of the others, where whole Sections were never discussed.
In the White Paper and subsequently the Government have deployed the argument that it would be impossible for the Land Commission to process all transactions and it might not even be desirable. Therefore, the categories with which it would be concerned in the first stages are set out in the early parts of Clause 6, and were in the White Paper. Therefore, my right hon. Friend was right to refer to them as priorities. They are categories of land acquisition which, in the Government's view, should concern the Commission in the early stages when it is not in a position to purchase all the land.
We then come to the more long-term purpose and responsibility of the Com-

mission, to which not a single hon. Member has addressed his mind this afternoon, and I think that that is equally true of the other place. If we are to meet the enormous demands which will be made upon the country's resources to house the additional population expected in the next 25–30 years, none of the instruments we have at present will be able to do it. I have evidence of shortage of land all over the country. Although it has been allocated in plans, it is not coming forward. There, we have a terrific task. My right hon. Friend referred to the fact that, as a chief planner to the Ministry of Housing had put it, to provide houses and roads for the expanding population, we should need to build each year something of the order of a city like Bristol of 430,000 people, or a town of 60,000 or 70,000 people every six weeks.
When one comes to the second appointed day, if the Commission is to discharge its duties adequately and effectively, it must have powers to buy well in advance. The Commission's powers have to be flexible. Technically, it is very difficult, if not impossible, when buying large areas ahead of requirement, although within locally decided planning decisions, to do it in the form of the Amendment. In fact, the Amendment would not do what the other place wanted, but I do not rest my argument upon that, because that is usual in these Amendments.
It would be almost impossible for the Commission to discharge its functions to meet the demands of national, regional and local plans in the future, if this Amendment were carried. Here I would put an alternative argument to that put by the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) and the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton). The hon. Gentleman suggested that the Bill as now drafted was creating a kind of nameless, faceless monster in Whitehall, deciding what was to be done—

Mr. Peyton: rose—

Mr. Skeffington: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. What happens under the Bill as now drafted is that the Commission cannot act outside the planning apparatus. There have to be planning decisions, apart from other Ministerial responsibilities. If the Amendment was carried and Whitehall


was to act, then, as was said in another place, that could go right across the existing planning machinery and against decisions which might have been taken by local planning authorities.
On both those counts, the Government feel that this Amendment is misconceived and very seriously hamstrings the Commission's operations after the second appointed day.

Mr. Peyton: I never referred to anyone as being nameless or faceless. What I said was that the provision converted the gentleman in Whitehall, whom I do not believe to be omniscient, into a rogue elephant who had to give no reasons for his actions.

Mr. Skeffington: If that is the hon. Gentleman's view he ought not to support the Amendment, because he might be giving an instrument to Whitehall which is greatly in addition to anything which the Bill proposes.
Practically every speech from right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite has been based on the assumption that the Bill is and has been deliberately designed to be oppressive to the rights of the individual citizen. I reject that utterly. The very reason for the length of the Bill is that, in case after case, we have spelt out the rights of individuals so as to give them every opportunity. In either stage, the Commission can only buy land for which there is planning permission or which is suitable for material development. There is a safeguard that the Minister must approve every compulsory purchase order which is contested, and there is the further fact, to which I do not think any right hon. or hon. Member referred, that, by an Amendment to Clause 7, the Commission will in every case give its reasons, although it will not define in advance the purposes for which it requires the land. That, therefore, completely alters the picture, and I am sorry that it has not been mentioned before.
On the wider matter of principle here, although there is a good deal of technicality in this which may govern the matter for the purposes of the Amendments from the other place, the clash on principle is between those who wish to see a new effective instrument able to provide the land required for all the pur-

poses that I have mentioned, free from the uncertainties that dogged the old Central Land Board—those who want to see an effective Commission able to serve the community—and those who still hanker after laissez faire. With the pressures facing us today, really the community cannot afford that kind of ineffective apparatus.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Allason: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, he fell back on the Amendment to Clause 7 as being a reasonable case which made this unnecessary. However, the Amendment to Clause 7 only refers to compulsory purchase, whereas Clause 6 refers also to the voluntary acquisition of land. Does he expect that anyone will agree voluntarily to sell land to the Commission if he cannot be told for what purpose it is required?

Mr. Skeffington: I mentioned the matter in connection with the points being made about compulsory purchase powers, but I have also mentioned the other safeguards. Taken together, I think that there is every reason for leaving the Bill as it is.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the Government want to make progress, they must provide better answers from the Front Bench than that to which the House has just listened.
It comes after a debate conducted, apart from the Minister's speech and one unhappy intervention from the Parliamentary Private Secretaries' bench—solely from this side, criticising above all the decision of the Government to reject a Lords Amendment which would at least let someone whose land was taken know for what purpose it was taken. Only in his concluding sentences did the Parliamentary Secretary, who otherwise read his brief very agreeably, come near that central point. What he said then seemed to damn his whole case, because he said that the clash is between those who want to have an effective instrument to acquire land for the great housing tasks of the next 20 years, and those who prefer laissez-faire. He was really admitting that the Government's method of dealing with the problem involved doing plain and blatant injustice to individuals. That is the clear admission in what he said


when he came to the point in the concluding moments of his speech.
That is the attitude of the party opposite. What about the hon. Member who intervened from the P.P.Ss' bench to ask how many people had property to take? The plain indication is that these are only a minority, and that it does not matter if we do them injustice.
This House has revolted for centuries against that doctrine. Not only is it a bad doctrine; it is based on a complete inaccuracy. In all there are about 8 million owner-occupiers in this country, every one of whom may be affected by the Bill. Before hon. Members opposite go into the Lobby to do injustice to what they believe to be a contemptible minority I hope that in their own interests they will appreciate that it is a very large body of citizens.
Then we had the extraordinary behaviour of the Minister. A constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharpies) wrote a letter to the Minister, to which the Minister replied to the constituent concerned, without sending a copy to my hon. Friend, containing a statement which he says gives the effect of the Bill. My hon. Friend read one of the paragraphs from that letter. It reads rather amusingly when one recalls that earlier the right hon. Gentleman said that ther had been a great deal of misrepresentation about the Bill. He is at least consistent.
The right hon. Gentleman must be able to answer the question without hiding behind a request for notice. The letter says that the Commission's power to buy property does not extend to a house; it can only buy land required for substantial development or redevelopment. My question is simplicity itself. Is that statement true or false? It is basic to the Amendment. If it is true, plainly it will go a great way to meet those of us who are anxious to protect the interests of 8 million owner-occupiers. This was the letter of a Minister of a Crown writing to inform a citizen of the effect of a Measure for which he is responsible. The Minister is not prepared, in the House, either to deny or to accept the truth of what he said in that letter, written as recently as 1st December.
How he can expect to remain a Minister if he conducts himself in this

way I do not know. It was a lamentable performance. He had time to obtain information from the Box—which has been far more populated than his own back benches—before he rose to answer the simple question: on 1st December, did he or did he not tell the truth? The right hon. Gentleman still sits there. Throughout the debate he has adopted the technique of a bolster—just sitting there being punched, praying for the arrival of a Blucher, in the shape of the Patronage Secretary. When his own personal accuracy is in dispute the right hon. Gentleman may discover that it is not very remunerative to remain silent. We are left with a very unhappy impression.

Mr. Wiley: The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do the rules and traditions of the House. If an hon. Member wishes to raise a point made in a letter it is usual and courteous to give notice so that a Minister may look at the correspondence. Having heard a further quotation by the right hon. Gentleman, it is clear to me that the letter is correct. Whether it is ambiguous or not is a matter to consider in the light of the correspondence. I can only surmise, but it seems to me that the correspondent was saying that the Land Commission can exercise compulsory powers in respect of any house, and that I was saying—which is quite correct—"No. it cannot exercise compulsory purchase powers in that respect; there must be an element of development."

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: This makes the position even more unhappy. I shall not argue with him about courtesty. He rebukes my hon. Friend for not having given him notice that he was going to refer to this letter. My hon. Friend was equally right in rebuking the Minister for corresponding with his constituent —writing on the official paper of his Department— behind my hon. Friend's back. This has happened before, and the Prime Minister, who has higher standards in this matter, has had the decency to apologise for another Minister who did it.
Whatever may be said against the letter there is no ambiguity about it. It is in sharp contrast to the right hon. Gentleman's speeches in that respect. His answer does not clear up the question whether the statement in that letter


is right or not. It is obvious from the context that the letter from the constituent was the letter of a man who was anxious lest his house be taken. The right hon. Gentleman has never disputed that many houses and gardens have a development value. We still want to know whether the assurance which the right hon. Gentleman gave to my hon. Friend's constituent was accurate. I beg him, for the sake of his reputation, to say that what he said in the letter is completely untrue, and that there are many cases under the Bill where people's houses can be taken.
That is one of the major reasons for the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman is not only prepared to take people's houses without letting them know for what purpose they are required; he wants to conceal this from the public until he has got the powers on the Statute Book.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that under the provisions of Clause 6(3,b) a man whose house is in an area zoned for some other use in the plan—if that use is ultimately prescribed by the Minister—could have the house taken even if there were no fully implemented planning permission in respect of that house?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend, who speaks with exceptional authority on this subject. Here again, the Minister has had the advantage of his advice. The Minister would do better to say, "I am a hard-worked Minister, dealing with a Bill that I do not wholly understand. I made a slip, and I apologise."

Captain Walter Elliot: It appears from the Minister's intervention that the Land Commission will operate only when there is a question of substantial development or redevelopment. What does he mean by "substantial development?" Is it a question of the number of houses or the area of land? Perhaps a house on a quarter of an acre or half an acre will be exempt; I am not sure. Will the Minister define this term more closely? Is he visualising that the Commission will buy up land, whether in large or small amounts—perhaps one house and an acre—for the purpose of the Greater London Council or any other local authority?

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 197, Noes 139.

Division No. 253.]
AYES
[6.0 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Gregory, Arnold


Alldritt, Walter
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Grey, Charles (Durham)


Allen, Scholefield
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Anderson, Donald
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)


Archer, Peter
Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Armstrong, Ernest
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Harper, Joseph


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Delargy, Hugh
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Dewar, Donald
Haseldine, Norman


Barnett, Joel
Dickens, James
Henig, Stanley


Bence, Cyril
Dobson, Ray
Hooley, Frank


Bidwell, Sydney
Doig, Peter
Horner, John


Binns, John
Driberg, Tom
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Bishop, E. S.
Dunn, James A.
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)


Blackburn, F.
Dunnett, Jack
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)


Booth, Albert
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Bradley, Tom
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Hunter, Adam


Brooks, Edwin
Ellis, John
Hynd, John


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Ennals, David
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon, Tyne, W.)
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Fernyhough, E.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St. P'cras, S.)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Floud, Bernard
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Cant, R. B.
Foley, Maurice
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Carmichael, Neil
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Kelley, Richard


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Forrester, John
Kenyon, Clifford


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Fowler, Gerry
Lawson, George


Chapman, Donald
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
Leadbitter, Ted


Coe, Denis
Freeson, Reginald
Ledger, Ron


Coleman, Donald
Gardner, Tony
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Concannon, J. D.
Garrett, W. E.
Lee, John (Reading)


Crawshaw, Richard
Ginsburg, David
Lestor, Miss Joan


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Gourlay, Harry
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)




Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Oakes, Gordon
Small, William


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Ogden, Eric
Snow, Julian


Lipton, Marcus
Orme, Stanley
Spriggs, Leslie


Lomas, Kenneth
Oswald, Thomas
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Swain, Thomas


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Swingler, Stephen


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Symonds, J. B.


McBride, Neil
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Taverne, Dick


McCann, John
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Thornton, Ernest


MacColl, James
Pavitt, Laurence
Tinn, James


MacDermot, Niall
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Tomney, Frank


Macdonald, A. H.
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Urwin, T. W.


McGuire, Michael
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Varley, Eric G.


Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Mackintosh, John P.
Price, William (Rugby)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Maclennan, Robert
Probert, Arthur
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Randall, Harry
Weitzman, David


McNamara, J. Kevin
Rankin, John
Wellbeloved, James


MacPherson, Malcolm
Redhead, Edward
Whitaker, Ben


Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey
White, Mrs. Eirene


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wilkins, W. A.


Mapp, Charles
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Marquand, David
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Mason, Roy
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Mendelson, J. J.
Rose, Paul
Winterbottom, R. E.


Millan, Bruce
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Woof, Robert


Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Shore, Peter (Stepney)
Yates, Victor


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)
Zilliacus, K.


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)



Moyle, Roland
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Neal, Harold
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Mr. William Whitlock and Mr. William Howie.


Newens, Stan
Skeffington, Arthur





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Baker, W. H. K.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Batsford, Brian
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Percival, Ian


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hastings, Stephen
Peyton, John


Bell, Ronald
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Pink, R. Bonner


Bessell, Peter
Heseltine, Michael
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Biffen, John
Hill, J. E. B.
Prior, J. M. L.


Body, Richard
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pym, Francis


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Holland, Philip
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hornby, Richard
Royle, Anthony


Bromley-Davenport. Lt. -Col. Sir Walter
Howell, David (Guildford)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Sharples, Richard


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Iremonger, T. L.
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Sinclair, Sir George


Bullus, Sir Eric
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Smith, John


Campbell, Gordon
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Channon, H. P. G.
Jopling, Michael
Stodart, Anthony


Clark, Henry
Kimball, Marcus
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Clegg, Walter
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Cooke, Robert
Kitson, Timothy
Temple, John M.


Cardle, John
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Costain, A. P.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Thorpe, Jeremy


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Tilney, John


Currie, G. B. H.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Longden, Gilbert
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Lubbock, Eric
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Doughty, Charles
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Vickers, Dame Joan


Eden, Sir John
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Maddan, Martin
Walters, Dennis


Farr, John
Marten, Neil
Ward, Dame Irene


Fisher, Nigel
Maude, Angus
Weatherill, Bernard


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mawby, Ray
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Fortescue, Tim
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Monro, Hector
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Goodhart, Philip
More, Jasper
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Goodhew, Victor
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Worsley, Marcus


Gower, Raymond
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles



Grant, Anthony
Murton, Oscar
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grant-Ferris, R.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Mr. David Mitchell and Mr. Reginald Eyre.


Grieve, Percy
Onslow, Cranley



Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

Lords Amendment: No. 3, in page 6, line 3, leave out from "section" to "to" in line 6.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: On a point of order. I wonder whether you could give me some guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the last debate, to which I intend to make no reference, some serious charges were levelled at the Minister, upon his honour and upon his accuracy. May I inquire, through you, whether the House could be assisted by the Minister, who has now had an opportunity to consult no fewer than seven or eight civil servants in the Box? Would he like to make a statement touching on the charges which were levelled at him?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member knows that I was not in the Chair when those charges were made. I was not aware that they had been made. The Minister has no doubt heard what he said and will, if he wishes, be in a position to deal with it later in the debate.

Mr. Skeffington: I wonder whether it would be convenient if we also took, with Amendment No. 7, Lords Amendment No. 27. They are on the same point.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not think that it would be either convenient or in order. The rules of the House require that each of these Amendments made in another place must be dealt with separately. On each occasion after the Clerk has called the Amendment, the Minister must move either that this House doth agree or that this House doth disagree before we can proceed. May I therefore invite the Minister to move, in relation to Amendment No. 3, whether he is inviting the House to agree or disagree with the Lords?

Mr. Skeffington: I will do that, but the point which I was making—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must ask the Minister first of all to move as a substantive Motion whether he is inviting the House to agree or disagree with this Amendment.

Mr. Skeffiington: I thought that I had already done so. I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must say that as a result of the earlier debate I understood that this House would be invited to disagree with this Amendment.

Mr. Skeffington: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was under the impression that we were passing to Amendment No. 7. I had not realised that I had to move the earlier Amendments separately. I beg to move, That the Lords disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Peyton: On a point of order. I believe that the Minister just moved that the Lords do disagree with the said Amendment. It is very difficult for the Lords to do so for the reasons, first of all, that they made the Amendment and, secondly, that they are not here to disagree.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We all admire the verbal dexterity of the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), but as I understand it—perhaps I was not listening as carefully—the Minister intended to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment. Am I correct?

Mr Skeffington: indicated assent.

Mr. Peyton: On a point of order. May we not see whether the Minister can actually do this? I know that it is a very complicated operation, but it should not be entirely beyond the capacity of someone who has been a member even of this Government for a few months.

Mr. Skeffington: I hope that the hon. Member will not try to be deliberately offensive. I have moved, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment. I have now done it three times, and I hope that he will be satisfied.

Mr. Graham Page: May we know at this stage with which Amendment we are asked to disagree?

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Surely it is unnecessary to answer that question. We are dealing with the Amendment which the Clerk just read out—the Amendment in page 6, line 3.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments disagreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 7, in page 6, line 38, at end insert:
() In relation to planning permission granted on an outline application (that is to say, an application for planning permission subject to subsequent approval on any matters) the reference in subsection (3)(a) of this section to the development authorised by the planning permission shall be construed as including all development for which planning permission was granted on that application either with or without any requirement as to subsequent approval.

Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Clegg: I rise with some diffidence to question this Amendment because of the reception it got in another place. It may be that I am more suspicious than some of my hon. Friends, but, then, I have been exposed to the virus of the Land Commission Bill for perhaps a longer period.
As I understand the effect of the Amendment, it is to extend the powers of the Commission to purchase land where there is an outline planning permission. This is the second of two Amendments which were moved to Clause 99 at a late stage on Report, when it was pointed out that, if a person is to take advantage of the concession, he must have had full planning permission before being able to start the development before the first appointed day. It seems that the Government want in this creature, the Commission, the best of both worlds. However, when it comes to the citizen wanting to start work before the first appointed day, he must have absolute permission.
Lord Kennet, who moved the adoption of the Amendment in another place, said that there was great confusion in construing the Bill and the difficulties that would arise. He was right. More than a year after the White Paper was published and following all the debates that have taken place in this House, that noble Lord said last November:
…the present Clause 99(3) was inserted because it was evident from comment in the legal Press and elsewhere that there was confusion in the minds of the public about the meaning of the words 'authorised by planning permission'"—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Order. The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to quote from speeches made in another place.

Mr. Clegg: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was quoting the words of a Minister.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman was quoting from a Ministerial statement, that is in order.

Mr. Clegg: The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, who was moving a Government Amendment—and who, I presume, was, at least at that time, a Minister—said:
which were used in various places in Part III of the Bill. Clause 99(3) made it clear that these words meant that any detailed planning consents necessary under an outline planning permission must have been obtained before any work done was authorised by that planning permission.
He went on:
We have now realised, however, that the Amendment has had more severe repercussions on Clause 6(3,a) than was expected and has made it clear that the Commission would not be able to buy land where the planning permission was in outline and the necessary detailed planning consents had not been obtained."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 28th November, 1966: Vol. 278, c. 529.]
It seems that at every stage the present Government, with all the powers at their disposal, including the skill of the Parliamentary draftsmen, have not been able to understand the consequences of their proposals. Despite this, the Parliamentary Secretary said in this House last Tuesday at Question Time that more people understood the Bill than was generally realised. I confess that Lord Kennet's views do not exactly accord with that.
It is strange that the Government, when they want to help the Commission, lean over backwards while, when it comes to considering the position of the man who has bought land or who has got land and wants to develop it before the appointed day, they make it more difficult for him to do so.

Mr. Skeffington: I will explain the position, particularly since the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) has picked out and referred to certain facets of the Amendment. In passing I will refer to Amendment No. 27, to which we will come later and which applies to Clause 6. It was clear, as I reported to the House, that in the technical Press and elsewhere there was some confusion about the meaning of the words "authorised by planning permission". This, of course, is the phrase used constantly and


consistently in Part III of the Bill. An Amendment was, therefore, made in this place on Report to Clause 99 and that made it clear that the words meant that any detailed planning consents necessary under an outline planning permission must have been obtained before any work done was authorised by that planning permission. Thus, Clause 99(3) was designed to maintain that consistency throughout the Bill It was welcomed as removing an uncertainty, although it is perfectly true that, when the effect of the Amendment was considered on Clause 6(3), it was found to be unduly restrictive.
The hon. Member for North Fylde is wrong to imagine that the Amendment will be of advantage only to the Commission. Without it it would have been impossible for the Commission to purchase by compulsory purchase unless this procedure had been carried out. It is equally true that failure to amend the provision would not have advantaged the landowner, either, because it would merely have created procedural difficulties which would, I assure the hon. Gentleman, have been of no advantage to him.
In other words, if the Amendment had not been made the Commission could not acquire land compulsorily while no consents had been given under an outline planning permission. The landowner, meanwhile, could not proceed with his development until he had obtained approval—and then the Commission could acquire the land. Without the Amendment the landowner would be afraid to move, while the Commission would be ineffective to intervene. It is only in connection with the application of Clause 6 that the Amendment is necessary, but it is very much to the advantage of all the parties that the Amendment should be made. That is why we took this opportunity in the House of Lords to make the Amendment, and in another place the matter was agreed to, which allows me to present the Amendment to the House as being a reasonable and necessary one.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7.—(COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDERS: NORMAL PROCEDURE.)

Lords Amendment: No. 8, in page 7, line 39, at end insert:
() So much of Schedule 1 to the Acquisition of Land Act, or of any regulations made under that Act, as requires a notice relating to

a compulsory purchase order to specify the purpose for which the land is required, or for which it is authorised to be compulsorily purchased, shall, in relation to any such notice published or served by the Commission on or after the second appointed day, be construed as requiring the notice to specify the reasons for which the Commission propose to acquire the land.

Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Allason: My hon. Friends and I heartily welcome Amendment No. 9, which is identical to an Amendment which I moved in Committee but which was rejected by the Government on a vote.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are dealing with Amendment No. 7, not No. 8.

Mr. Allason: In that case I will extend my lesser enthusiasm to Amendment No. 8, because while that replaces something which will disappear if we agree to Amendment No. 9, it is difficult to refer to No. 8 without referring to what will disappear as a result of No. 9.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If it is agreeable to the House, Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 could be discussed together, although they must be moved separately.

Mr. Skeffington: That would be an admirable course.

Mr. Allason: The effect of the two Amendments is to remove a great injustice which remained in the Bill all the time it was with this House. It is only the persuasive powers of another place that have caused the Government to make a last-minute repentance. The Government's intention was that where there was a compulsory purchase order after the second appointed day, there need be no stated purpose for the acquisition. The effect of the two Amendments—in place of removing this right—is to give a fresh right. The wording of Amendment No. 8 substitutes the requirement that the purpose, in the case of a compulsory order, should be stated, into the reason being stated—so that "purpose" will now read "reason".
There must be some reason why the Government have introduced eight more lines into the Bill to deal with this change of position after the second appointed


day. To a certain extent the Government have fallen into their own trap because, while the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946, uses "purpose"—which, to the layman, would seem to mean "reason"—when referring to a compulsory purchase order, the Government have chosen the word "purpose" in Clause 6(4) and thereby have laid a trap for themselves. I say that because they have realised that if the two Measures were construed together, it might be thought that the purposes appearing in Clause 6(4) of this Measure were the same sort of purposes referred to in the 1946 Act. It is an unlikely explanation, but the Government have chosen that course and have replaced "purpose" with "reason".
Clearly, the safeguards which we discussed on the previous Amendment, to Clause 6(3), obviously have little validity. I hope that we have now disposed of the pretence that the fact that there should be a planning permission or something of the sort is a sufficient safeguard for the citizen. The Government are now giving a safeguard to the citizen as regards compulsory purchase, and this does not refer to acquiring land by the Commission.
If the Commission was not prepared to state its reasons when negotiating for land it would not be likely to find very much land coming forward, because few people would want to part with their land unless they were told the purposes for which it was being taken from them. I regret to have to confuse the issue by referring to "purposes" and "reasons", since to the layman they seem to mean the same. However, this switch adds eight lines to the Bill and I suppose that one must take the view that the Bill is so complicated that eight lines do not make much difference in the 189 pages of the Measure.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Willey: The hon. Member is making rather heavy weather about this. We have added the lines because the Opposition in the Lords wished us to do so. We were content to leave the position as it was. It was clear enough. The burden of satisfying the inspector was obviously upon the Commission. The Lord Chancellor's rules would have provided for the burden to be on the Com-

mission without this Amendment. The Commission would have to give its reasons, but it was felt that we should make this requirement explicit on the face of the Bill and that is what we are doing.

Mr. Graham Page: First the right hon. Gentleman took it out of the normal procedure that the Land Commission should state its "purposes" before acquiring land. He restores it now by saying that the Land Commission should state its "reasons". Suppose the Commission says that this is derelict land and that is the reason for the Commission purchasing it, whereas the real purpose is to put a sewage works on it. The Commission would say that it was taking the land in order to clear it up, but that would not be the real purpose. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will realise how mean and ungenerous he is being over this Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8.—(COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDERS: SPECIAL PROCEDURE.)

Lords Amendment: No. 10, in page 8, line 38, at the end to insert:
(2A) An order under subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to any acquisition of land of a description specified in section 1(2) of the Acquisition of Land Act (land belonging to local authorities etc.)

Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Hugh Rossi: I welcome this Amendment as one would welcome any Amendment to Clause 8. Clause 8 has perhaps attracted the greatest attention both in this House and in another place. It is the Clause which deals with the special procedure relating to compulsory purchase. Anything which cuts down the powers of the Minister in that respect is most welcome.
As the Clause was originally drawn, the Minister had power to make an Order to the effect that special procedure could apply to the whole country generally. Once he had made the Order applying special procedure to the whole of the country generally, the Land Commission


could step in and acquire property without the general protection of public inquiries on matters of this kind. There has been a great deal of public concern about this. These procedures will appertain, but at least this Amendment seeks to place on the Minister the restriction that he may not make a general Order covering the whole country at one time. What he must now do under this Amendment is to make Orders which must specify special classes of property, and he must come to Parliament in order to have the matter ratified.
There is no definition as to special classes and we are to a certain extent in the dark as to what the Minister may have in mind. If he is able to give if I should be grateful for some explanation of the Amendment to that extent. How will the Order operate to specify a class of acquisition? Subject to that I welcome this Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 13, in page 9, line 1, leave out subsection (4).

Mr. Willey: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House at the same time to consider Lords Amendment No. 14: In page 9, line 10, leave out "subsection" and insert "section".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If it is agreeable to the House the two Amendments may be discussed together.

Mr. Graham Page: indicated assent.

Mr. Willey: As the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) said, it is now clear on the face of the Bill itself that Clause 8 will not be invoked in general circumstances. I had always made clear that there was no intention so to do, but it is now written in as part of the Bill itself. I do not object to that at all. It is now explicit in the Clause.
As hon. Members will remember, I offered to consider the question of whether we should have affirmative or negative procedures on two or three matters, of which this was one. I came—to the view—which I am sure is right —

that this is not a Clause in which the affirmative procedure should be invoked. This clearly is a Clause which ought to rely upon the negative procedure. There are technical difficulties about the Amendment itself. I do not rely on those, because this is a matter which the Government could construe, but I was advised that they would probably be construed as a misprint.
On merits we have made it impossible to resort generally under this Clause. Because of the wide range of circumstances which might invoke Orders and the limited circumstances which would be dealt with, and because of the general desirability of the Government confining the operations of this Clause—which, incidentally, is accepted now by the Opposition in the Lords; they do not deny that there might be a case for invoking the powers under the Clause—it is better to rely on the negative and not on the affirmative procedure.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: This Clause and the Second Schedule which goes with it are an echo of far-off unhappy things, being a very clear echo of the now happily defunct Section 2 of the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946, and the Third Schedule of that Act. Section 2 of the 1946 Act, the so-called "speedy procedure" under that Act, was repealed in 1953 in the days of freedom and now, as it were, it has been plucked from the pigeon-hole where it has lain since 1953. It is proposed to be re-enacted, although in an intensified form, by these provisions.
This Clause is called the special procedure. Section 2 of the 1946 Act, on which it is based, was called by Government supporters in those days a speedy procedure, but it was always referred to by those in opposition in the Standing Committee and in the House as "the harsh and arbitrary procedure ". We were then led on this matter by a very dearly loved figure who later became Speaker of this House, then Mr. W. S. Morrison. Those who remember him will be able to recreate in their minds the way in which he pronounced these words "the harsh and arbitrary procedure" which nature has unfortunately not equipped me to reproduce.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The Minister of State might try.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: It would be difficult to recreate the full flavour he gave to those very descriptive words.
In fact Clause 8 as it stands is worse than the repealed Section 2 of the 1946 Act because that Section did at least have a requirement of exceptional urgency before the harsh and arbitrary procedure could be put into effect. As the House will appreciate, that is not the case in regard to Clause 8 of this Bill. All that is required here is, under subsection (1), that it should appear
to the appropriate Minister or Ministers that it is necessary in the public interest to enable the Commission to obtain authority for the compulsory acquisition of land by a simplified procedure".
What that really means is that the Minister has carte blanche. Whenever he may think it is in the public interest, he is able to give power to the Commission to proceed to compulsory acquisition. After a lapse of 20 years we find that this Bill is more authoritarian in this respect even than the 1946 Act. The little finger of the right hon. Gentleman is thicker than the loins of the then Minister in that first fine rapture of Socialist enthusiasm in the Attlee Administration of those days.
If the House refers to the Second Schedule it will be found that it simply reproduces the words of the discredited and repealed Third Schedule of the 1946 Act. In paragraph (2) it refers to the service of a notice on the person whose land is to be acquired. Under 2(b) we see that it is a sufficient notice if it is:
either delivered to some person on the land or, if there is no person on the land to whom it can be delivered, is affixed to some conspicuous object on the land.
When the provision says:
delivered to some person on the land
there is no requirement that that person shall have any proprietary interest in the land or any necessary or lawful connection with anyone who in fact has such a proprietary interest.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the right hon. and learned Member, but I understand that we are discussing only the limited question as to whether subsection (4) of Clause 8 should stand. I do not think it would be in order to canvass the whole of the merits of Clause 8 or to go into the detail of the Schedule.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Not the whole of the merits I agree, but only sufficient of the merits to support my argument that this is a Clause which, taken with the accompanying provisions of the Schedule —and they have to be read together—is such as to demand the very closest form of Parliamentary control such as is provided by the Amendment from another place and such as is proposed to be deleted by the Motion to disagree which the Minister has moved.
In support of that, I wanted to refer —and to refer only very shortly—to one or two matters in the Schedule, but only in that limited context. Of course I appreciate the force of your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and naturally I shall entirely abide by it. In that limited context I have explained that here is a provision where it is sufficient in order to take away land if this procedure is to go on uncontrolled to give notice to some person without any connection with the owner, a casual wayfarer, a trespasser or even a fugitive from justice. Take the case of my constituency and Thorley Wood. I suppose that if anybody had served a notice on Roberts while he was hiding in Thorley Wood, it would have been a sufficient satisfaction of the provisions of the Schedule. As for the conspicuous object, I suppose that it would be sufficient to pin the notice to a tree which is blown down overnight in a gale.
6.45 p.m.
Suppose, however, that it is reasonable to take this example at this time of year in view of the harsh weather that we were promised. Suppose that somebody puts a snowman on the land, complete with prime ministerial pipe in mouth—a veritable abominable snowman—and affixes a notice to it and it is promptly melted away before anybody has a chance to see it. That would also satisfy the provisions of the Schedule. If the Minister thinks that it would not, perhaps he would be good enough to explain. On my reading, it would be sufficient. Therefore, we get the position under this so-called special procedure that a person can have his land acquired compulsorily without even knowing that that is what is proposed to be done.
The Minister may say that it does not very much matter because it does not do the citizen much good in this procedure if he does know, because even if he knows


he has no right to an inquiry or even a right to be heard. All that he has is a right to have the decision notified to him; and it is almost inevitable, as he has no right of a hearing or of inquiry, that the decision will be against him.
Therefore, as the Government are seeking here to revive in an aggravated form an odious procedure which was properly removed from the Statute Book, it is surely very wrong that they should come to the House and seek to remove this minimum and very reasonable constitutional requirement which the Amendment of the other place has put on the exercise of this power.
This shows that the Government are approaching the Bill on the basis that they will not accept any restrictions or curbs whatever on the totality of the power of the Commission and of the central machine in this matter. That is clean contrary once again to the view which has been traditionally taken of these matters in the House and the regard that we have always sought to pay to constitutional safeguards and the rights of the citizen.
The Government's attitude is indefensible in reason. I dare say that this will not make very much difference. As has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain), the benches opposite are not occupied by the supporters of the Government. They do not come here to defend the Bill. They are ashamed even to listen to the defence of the Bill as put forward from their Front Bench. One would sympathise with that if only they would follow their absence here with a corresponding absence in the Division Lobby when the decision of the House is taken. We know, however, that when that time comes, the Minister can, and does, rely upon the uncomprehending but slavish obedience of his cohorts in other parts of the Palace of Westminster.
It is on that basis that this Measure is being pushed through, not on merit or on reason, but simply on the power of a majority in the Division Lobby. It is very reprehensible that the clock is being put back in this way. This harsh and arbitrary procedure is being revived in an intensified and aggravated form and the Minister will not even make it subject to the affirmative Resolution procedure,

which would give some reality to Parliamentary control.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) was rather unfair to hon. Members opposite when he rebuked them for not being here to listen to Ministerial defence of the Bill. It must be absolute agony for them to hear it and I rather sympathise with them in finding themselves disposed to be in another part of this Palace.
My right hon. and learned Friend has produced a powerful case for insisting on the affirmative procedure. I desire to add only two reasons to those adduced by my right hon. and learned Friend. First, as he has said, this is an odious procedure which is contemplated by the Clause and the Schedule and it is made very little less odious by the Amendments introduced in another place. It seems to me that, whatever may have been said in another place, there is no justification whatever for it.
To take away, perhaps—I say this deliberately—somebody's home by a procedure of which the person affected need not even know seems to be an outrage in civilised society. It is utterly wrong that the Government should seek to put upon the Statute Book a Measure empowering that to be done in any circumstances.
I agree that that is not the issue on the Amendment, which defines what the Government must do to exercise this odious and tyrannous power. If the Government insist on taking this power, they should go through what is generally regarded by all Parliamentarians as the strongest test, that of the affirmative procedure. In other words, a Minister should be forced to come to the Dispatch Box and deploy positively the reasons why this power should be taken in the circumstances in which it is being asked. That is the least that the House of Commons can ask if this procedure is to be adopted at all.
No one can say that there may not be circumstances of fantasy which would give the Government an arguable case for saying that they should take this power. If that should arise, however, they should be compelled to make that case. They should not themselves be the judges and take the power.
Secondly, there is here a technical problem. Under the negative procedure an Order is made, and if the House is sitting it can be prayed against during the following 40 days. If the Order is made during the Recess, time does not run until the House returns. The possible time, therefore, for a Prayer to annul such an Order is certainly 40 days. If, for example, an Order were made early in the Summer Recess, it might be a matter of months.
What is to happen during that interval? If I understand the Clause aright —I speak subject to correction—the Order would operate as soon as it was made and the Government would proceed to operate this procedure. If the House is in recess, there is no opportunity to pray against the Order; the machine marches forward to deprive someone of his land. It may well be that by the time House returns and the sitting days are running again, it is too late for a Prayer successfully to be carried through. A Minister might get up at the Box and say, "I am very sorry, but this has been done. The procedure has been operated." The merit which is claimed for this procedure is that it is quick. It therefore seems that in this type of matter the negative procedure affords very little protection.
To take the argument a little further, let us suppose that none the less the Prayer is carried. I am, I think, the only hon. Member in the Chamber this afternoon who has actually had a Prayer carried.

Mr. Willey: So have I.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I share that distinction with the right hon. Gentleman, who, I am sure, will share my hope that I will soon be able to put my score ahead of his.
Prayers can be carried. Suppose that the Prayer is carried in this case. What would happen if the process of compulsory acquisition had gone ahead? That shows how inapposite the negative procedure is for this subject matter, although I accept that it is a very good procedure in many other cases.
I may not be out of order by indulging in competitive recollection or anecdotage with the right hon. Gentleman. The effect of my carrying a Prayer was to

add to the cheese ration of the United Kingdom by an ounce per head for a week. Nobody could get that cheese back. If the Minister has taken my house under this procedure, if he has moved me out and got me in the position of desperately struggling to find somewhere to live if he has power to take it away from me, he cannot undo the harm that he has done. That is the distinction.
That is why, if one thinks of the subject matter, there are two overwhelming arguments for using the affirmative procedure. One is that all hon. Members, I think, accept that this is a very powerful engine of government, a tremendous power over the citizen, a unique power over the citizen to take in time of peace. My right hon. and learned Friend said that it goes further even than the powers taken at the end of the war.
Secondly, it is a matter in which the negative procedure could be a largely illusory protection. It would have some advantage in that the matter would be publicised and the Minister brought to the Despatch Box, and I do not under-rate this, but as a protection to the citizen it would be inadequate.
Therefore, if the Minister wants, even at this stage, to show that he is prepared to do something to protect the citizen or to do other than leave the citizen at the mercy of his creature, the Land Commission, he should give the citizen the protection of the affirmative procedure. Even if the Minister is worried about the Government Chief Whip—who is not here at the moment—let him stand up just once for the citizen.

Mr. Peyton: I support the protest which has been made by my two right hon. Friends against the Government's attitude on this matter. It seems to me to be part and parcel of the doctrine enunciated not very long ago by the Prime Minister that "We have taken steps which have been taken by no other democratic country in the world." It all rings so true and is consistent with the doctrine.
The subsection with which we are dealing offers to the individual a wretched protection for his essential rights. I should like to echo what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) said about the public interest and the attitude constantly adopted by tyrants. Who are Ministers to


be the arbitrary judges of the public interest? In my view, they set themselves up unduly and without warranty.
We have to remember that the subsection is accompanied by a Schedule which in one sense, and one sense alone, is distinguished in the Bill: it is comprehensible. Other parts of the Bill are not. Paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 2 gives to the Minister the right to dispense with any inquiry. It seems to me, therefore, that except for the negative and frail procedure of Prayer—and Prayers are likely to multiply, and as they multiply so their effect will diminish—the individual is left bereft of his rights and without any possible arena in which he can make his complaint.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: In case the effect of this compliment about the comprehensibility of Schedule 2 should have an exaggerated effect, does my hon. Friend appreciate that this Schedule is taken word for word from an earlier Statute? It is not therefore any new contribution to the Bill, and does not affect the general strictures on the general incomprehensibility as such.

7 p.m.

Mr. Peyton: I am obliged to my right hon. and learned Friend. That makes it very much worse. I suppose that the Government found this precedent in an earlier Statute and were ashamed not to use it. As a result, it stands out gleaming in its comprehensibility among the other unintelligible rubbish with which the Bill is littered, and I mean particularly the Schedules.
No words could be too strong in protest against this policy. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) said it was unreasonable to chide members of the Labour Party for their absence from the Government Benches. I have seldom seen those benches looking more beautiful than they are now. [Laughter.] I bow to the hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler), but she was not the only reason for my compliment. I can understand that were they here perhaps a sense of shame, dormant in them but dead in Ministers, might appear and rouse them to some kind of protest. What I find very difficult to stomach is the right hon. Gentleman's attitude that the Bill is such a reasonable

Measure that it will do things which have to be done.
We all understand the pressure of housing demand, and the rest of it, to which the Minister refers time and time again. What we are attacking is the Bill and the tyrannical means by which it is buttressed. We believe that the Bill will not work, but that the attempt to operate it will produce tyranny. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) said, the Government's complacent acceptance of this very flimsy procedure is intolerable.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: If ever there were a subject which ought to be given the fullest possible Parliamentary scrutiny, and not the least possible Parliamentary scrutiny, it must be Clause 8, because the Minister or the Commission is here provided with powers to take away a man's land without a public inquiry, without affording an objector an opportunity to state his case, without appearing before an inspector and, worst of all, without even being informed in certain circumstances that his land is being taken away from him.
Surely, if land is to be taken from a private individual without notice, without opportunity for redress, without a chance of appearing before an inspector, then this is something which goes to the heart of Parliament. If this subject is not one on which this House of Commons should spend a good deal of time, then I cannot think of any subject with which Parliament should concern itself.
We see this extraordinary and impractical procedure whereby the Commission is required to give notice by the process of affixing a piece of paper to a conspicuous object. I am very interested in where the burden of proof will lie, because in the event that the flimsy procedure here laid down is not complied with and the piece of paper is not affixed to a conspicuous object, where will the individual be able to have his case argued?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): I do not think that that arises on this Amendment.

Mr. Griffiths: With respect to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the case that I was making is that it is essential under subsection (4), which we are seeking to have


struck out, to have the affirmative procedure in order that the matters now referred to should have the fullest possible inquiry. That was the nature of my argument, but, of course, I accept at once your correction.
I wish to refer briefly to my own constituency, because this is a matter that really affects us in West Suffolk and it is for that reason I ask that the affirmative procedure should be followed.
In my constituency there is some ten-land. There are no conspicuous objects in some of the fens—at least, if the Minister wants to find them, he might have to wear an aqualung. I cannot believe that those servants of the Commission, who are sent out to affix these notices to conspicuous objects, should go around with hammer and nails or large pieces of adhesive tape in order to affix pieces of paper to what in winter might well be an expanse of water.
There are other areas which the Commission may well wish to acquire in my constituency, for instance in the Breckland, and I should like to know how the Minister envisages in the Breckland of Suffolk, with a 50 m.p.h. wind blowing, he will have those pieces of paper affixed to conspicuous objects—which often do not exist.
Further, has he never heard of gipsies and children? In the event of these pieces of paper fluttering around the countryside, is that the sort of burden of proof which a serious Government are asking a civilised nation to accept? What a way of doing business! When we are confronted with a procedure as flimsy as this, the House of Commons should have the maximum possible opportunity of requiring the Minister to stand up at the Box. He must show how making the country a laughing stock can possibly be justified. It is outrageous that the negative procedure, which the Minister knows perfectly well imposes many severe limitations on members in this House, should be used. I remember only recently sitting until 11.30 p.m. hoping to speak on a Prayer and not succeeding in being called. If a piece of paper is supposedly stuck on a conspicuous object and blows away, my constituents will not be at all happy if at 11.30 I am prevented from protesting against this. Therefore I ask

the Minister to recognise that he is foisting upon the country a tyrannical procedure, a sublimely ridiculous procedure, and is denying to the House an adequate opportunity to question him and to interrogate the Commission on the misdeeds which it is going to pursue.

Captain W. Elliot: The operation of this Clause is so extraordinary that I believe that when it is appreciated by the country, there will be a great outburst. Mr. Macmillan likened Socialism to a great octopus with arms grabbing in all directions, and this Clause is a vivid illustration of that.
When the people realise that they will have no appeal against the operation of the Clause unless the Minister thinks it expedient, they will ask Members of Parliament to take up their complaints. As has been pointed out by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), in certain circumstances we may not be able to so so.
We have read a good deal recently about the decline in the prestige of Parliament and in particular the ineffectiveness of back benchers because our procedure is getting out of date. If back benchers on the Government side of the House let this sort of thing go through, they had better start blaming not the procedures of the House for our weaknesses, but themselves. I hope that they will bear that in mind. The lack of attention and attendance of hon. Members opposite has already been mentioned. It is an absolute disgrace, when this sort of legislation is going through, that we hear remarks about how weak our procedure is and about what we should do to correct it. Hon. Members opposite can blame themselves if they allow this provision to go through.

Mr. Reginald Eyre: I hope that, having listened to the arguments of my hon. and right hon. Friends about the consequences of the Amendments and this very important Clause, the Minister will bear in mind the drastic consequences which will be suffered by a number of citizens, consequences which will flow from a rejection of the Amendment. I beg him to remember that the leaders of the professions concerned have addressed to him a protest to say that the Bill in general and


this Clause in particular merit further consideration.
I hope that he will indicate that he has taken that advice and will take away the Amendment, the Clause and the Bill with the object of trying to make these provisions safe. What a relief it would be if the Minister did that! He would receive nothing but commendation in the country if he were brave enough to make that decision. I beg him not to pursue this unworkable scheme, but to take it away while there is still time.

Mr. Skeffington: Perhaps I should say first that the procedure is not perfect. [Laughter.] I am very glad that hon. Members seem to share my view, because they applied it to every one of their Planning Acts, to every one of their Education Acts and to every other Act in which compulsory purchase procedures were invoked. Far from making a purely party political point, if it is so degrading as the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) has suggested, it is very surprising that in their 13 years of office no attempt was made to modify it.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: The Third Schedule of the Acquisition of Land Act, 1946, was repealed in 1953 in the course of our tenure of office.

Mr. Skeffington: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is normally more moderate in his criticisms, because he knows these things very well. Part V of Schedule 1 is still in force and was applied by right hon. Gentlemen opposite to a whole variety of Acts whenever compulsory purchase powers were included.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: But that does not include the Minister's right to dispense with a public inquiry.

Mr. Skeffington: No, but I was not dealing with that and nor was the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I do not think that this is a perfect procedure, and I do not think that it is impossible to get a better, but hon. Members have been addressing themselves to the affixing of notices and it is to that that I am addressing my remarks. Part V of Schedule 1 to the Acquisition of Land Act, 1946, is applicable to Acts passed when the right hon. and learned Gentleman was a

Minister. If at some time this procedure can be improved, I am sure that all parties will be grateful.
However, the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that a whole variety of steps have to be taken—endeavouring to find the owner by advertisement, by addressing to the last known address and so on—before this step can be taken. Only when all those have failed is this step taken, and the Government feel that even then we must still try by any device left open to us to notify the owner. This has been the practice of Governments of both parties. I agree that this is not a perfect procedure, but it is nonsense to suggest that it is an invention of the Labour Government when in fact it has hallowed precedent.
I do not think that there is any absolute constitutional practice, but, broadly speaking, when changes intended under the Bill are major changes, such as the naming of the second appointed day, Governments of both parties have thought that such things should be subject to the affirmative procedure. There might be a number of Orders under this Clause and Governments of both parties have regarded such things as suitable for the negative procedure. In view of that, and in view of the practice of previous Governments, I hope that the House will now come to a decision on this
Amendment.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: The Parliamentary Secretary has made a most misleading speech. We are here discussing the special procedure to be applied by Clause 8. The special procedure can be brought into operation by an Order which would merely be subject to annulment by Prayer in this House, or in another place. On the face of it, this is a form of procedure which was used for a few years after the war, although in a less severe form. As the Parliamentary Secretary has said, it has been repeated in other legislation since.
But his statements were misleading in that he did not draw a distinction between the procedure as repeated in the Town and Country Planning Acts and this which we now find in Schedule 2. To start with, it has been applied in other legislation only for the benefit of elected bodies, and we are here dealing with a


nominated body not under the control of any electorate, as is a local authority. The procedure as now known does not apply to dwelling houses. Originally it was temporary. It does not include the provisions about notice which are to be found in Schedule 2. It includes the right of public inquiry.
These distinctions exist between the procedure to which the Parliamentary Secretary was referring and that in the Bill, and they are clear and definite distinctions in each case. The Bill removes certain fundamental rights of the citizen, particularly the right to a public inquiry. I know that if a later Amendment is accepted this will be toned down a little, but under this procedure it will still be possible for a man's property to be taken away from him without his being heard in his own cause.
One frequently asserts that the rule of law is the greatest protection of the subject against the Executive, but equally effective is his right to bring out in the open by a public inquiry for his friends and neighbours and before the Press and the public the conduct of the Executive towards the individual citizen. This is a vital right when his property is being taken from him, and it is a right which ought not to be removed without Parliament's taking a positive decision about it. It ought not to be removed by the Government before Parliament has had an opportunity to consider the circumstances giving rise to it.
It is recognised by the way in which the Government have drafted the Clause that present circumstances do not justify the special procedure. If the Government have thought that this special procedure was justified at the moment, there would have been such a provision in the Bill and it would not have been a matter of introducing it by Order. But the Bill provides, if the Minister thinks it necessary in the public interest at some time in future, for this special procedure depriving the citizen of certain of his fundamental rights to be brought into operation by Order.
If these circumstances exist, they should be put before Parliament, which should have an opportunity to decide whether they justify an order of this sort or not. The Minister should be pre-

pared to come before the House when he wishes to make an order of this kind and say what the circumstances are which make him think it necessary in the public interest and why they make the special procedure so necessary. He should not be allowed to make an order and bring it into operation and then, as it were, slap it on the Table of the House and say, "Pray against it if you like", while, in the meantime, a man's property may be being taken away from him.
Are the Government so frightened to debate an order of this sort before it is made? It is our complaint that an order can be made and come into operation before the House has an opportunity to debate it. Are the Government frightened to debate an order like this for more than an hour and a half? Under the negative procedure that is the most time we can have to debate such an order, for at 11.30 p.m. the guillotine falls, and on many occasions it deprives of an opportunity to take part hon. Members who wish to speak and put points on behalf of their constituents.

Mr. J. T. Price: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's observations about the changed procedure. A few moments ago the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) referred to his performance in 1951 when he succeeded, on a prayer, in preventing the Government putting a halfpenny on a lb of cheese. The 11.30 p.m. rule did not apply then. Every night in those days the prayer procedure was grossly abused through debates going all night because the Government only had a majority of three or so at the time. But the succeeding Government, of which the right hon. Member was a distinguished adornment, altered the rule because they did not like debates going, on all night on these orders. The Tory Government introduced the new procedure for a debate of an hour and a half on prayers and it is no good the hon. Member complaining to us about it.

Mr. Graham Page: I am sorry if I did not put my point clearly, but the hon. Member has made it for me. There are two forms of procedure, and when considering a Bill the sort of procedure we are to apply to orders under it is very important. We should not apply the


negative procedure, which means that a debate on an order must finish at 11.30 p.m. although that order may deprive a citizen of his rights. That is the point.
I agree that there are many cases where a negative order is the proper form of procedure—for example, when certain regulations are being brought forward perhaps it is right that time should be limited so that we do not have all-night sittings on small details. But this matter is not a small detail. The kind of order involved in this provision is a major matter affecting the citizen. This Clause

has caused as much consternation to the public as any Clause in the Bill. It is true that it is not yet in operation—thank heaven that it is not—but if it is brought into operation the order should be fully justified before the House and the circumstances which the Government think justify it.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 171, Noes 104.

Division No. 254.]
AYES
[7.25 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Ginsburg, David
O'Malley, Brian


Alldritt, Walter
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Orme, Stanley


Allen, Scholefield
Gourlay, Harry
Oswald, Thomas


Anderson, Donald
Gregory, Arnold
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Archer, Peter
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Bacon, Rt. Mn. Alice
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Bence, Cyril
Harper, Joseph
Pavitt, Laurence


Binns, John
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Blackburn, F.
Haseldine, Norman
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Booth, Albert
Hazell, Bert
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Henig, Stanley
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Bradley, Tom
Hooley, Frank
Price, William (Rugby)


Brooks, Edwin
Horner, John
Probert, Arthur


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Randall, Harry


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Redhead, Edward


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Howie, W.
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Cant, R. B.
Hunter, Adam
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Carmichael, Neil
Hynd, John
Rose, Paul


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Chapman, Donald
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St. P'cras, S,
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Coe, Denis
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Coleman, Donald
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Crawshaw, Richard
Kelley, Richard
Skeffington, Arthur


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Kenyon, Clifford
Slater, Joseph


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Lawson, George
Snow, Julian


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Leadbitter, Ted
Spriggs, Keith


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Lee, John (Reading)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Swingler, Stephen


Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Symonds, J. B.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Taverne, Dick


Delargy, Hugh
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Thornton Ernest


Dewar, Donald
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Tinn, James


Dickens, James
McBride, Neil
Tomney, Frank


Dobson, Ray
McCann, John
Urwin, T. W.


Doig, Peter
MacColl, James
Varley, Eric G.


Dunn, James A.
McGuire, Michael
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Dunnett, Jack
Mackintosh, John P.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Maclennan, Robert
Watkins, David (Consett)


Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Wellbeloved, James


Ellis, John
MacPherson, Malcolm
Whitaker, Ben


Ennals, David
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Whitlock, William


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Wilkins, W. A.


Fernyhough, E.
Mapp, Charles
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Mason, Roy
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mendelson, J. J.
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Floud, Bernard
Millan, Bruce
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Foley, Maurice
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Forrester, John
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Woof, Robert


Fowler, Gerry
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Yates, Victor


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
Neal, Harold
Zilliacus, K.


Freeson, Reginald
Newens, Stan



Gardner, Tony
Norwood, Christopher
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Garrett, W. E.
Ogden, Eric
Mr. Charles Grey and Mr. Ernest Armstrong.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Baker, W. H. K.
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Percival, Ian


Batsford, Brian
Heseltine, Michael
Peyton, John


Beamish, col. Sir Tufton
Hill, J. E. B.
Pink, R. Bonner


Bell, Ronald
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Body, Richard
Holland, Philip
Prior, J. M. L.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hooson, Emlyn
Pym, Francis


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col. Sir Walter
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Jopling, Michael
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Kimball, Marcus
Russell, Sir Ronald


Bullus, Sir Eric
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Sharples, Richard


Clark, Henry
Kitson, Timothy
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Clegg, Walter
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Sinclair, Sir George


Cordle, John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Smith, John


Costain, A. P.
Lubbock, Eric
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Currie, G. B. H.
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Maddan, Martin
Tilney, John


Eden, Sir John
Maude, Angus
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Mawby, Ray
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Eyre, Reginald
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Vickers, Dame Joan


Farr, John
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Ward, Dame Irene


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Fortescue, Tim
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Monro, Hector
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
More, Jasper
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Worsley Marcus


Goodhart, Philip
Murton, Oscar



Goodhew, Victor
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Onslow, Cranley
Mr. R. W. Elliott and Mr. Bernard Weatherill.


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Osborn, John (Hallam)

Subsequent Lords Amendment disagreed to.

Clause 9.—(GENERAL. VESTING DECLARATIONS.)

Lords Amendment: No. 15, in page 10, line 7, leave out from "affected" to end of line 8 and insert:
or a description by reference of those lands in the manner provided by section 61 of the Conveyancing (Scotland) Act 1874".

7.30 p.m.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move. That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
On Report I gave an undertaking to the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Baker) that we would make a certain Amendment at a later stage and this was done on 5th December in the other place, moved by the Government and agreed to by the Committee in the Lords. Where the Land Commission acquires land compulsorily it may do so by executing a general vesting declaration, and this procedure cuts out a good deal of conveyancing which would otherwise be necessary in the application of the Bill to Scotland. Provision is made for recording a declaration in the General Register of Sasines.
Something to which there is no counterpart in England and this is in order to preserve completeness of the Scottish Land Register. It was always our intention, for the purpose of recording the prescribed form of a vesting declaration provided for later in the Bill in Clause 9(1), that it should include a requirement for legal description of the land concerned, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Banff, on behalf of the Opposition said that he wished the Bill to be amended so as to provide for a description of the land.
I said that we had no objection in principle to that and this Amendment spells out the section of the Conveyancing (Scotland) Act, 1874, to which he made reference. This avoids the pitfall of misconstruction in the original Amendment which the hon. Gentleman was kind enough to withdraw on the basis of my promise, and I hope that he agrees that this Amendment was a sensible one.

Mr. Baker: As the hon. Gentleman the Minister of State reminded the House, this was an Amendment which I moved on Report. The only point that I wish to make is that in view of Scots law and practice, making the general Register


of Sasines sacrosanct, the particular description of land is necessary. I would agree entirely with the Amendment and I am sure that my hon. and right hon. Friends will accept it. I may say that I am advised by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) that the words "Section 61" of the Conveyancing (Scotland) Act, 1874, are unnecessary. As I say we are perfectly happy to accept it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 10.—(EFFECT OF GENERAL VESTING DECLARATION.)

Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 17, in page 11, leave out lines 28 to 32 and insert:
() In relation to land in Scotland, at the end of the period specified in a general vesting declaration, or if a notice of objection to severance is served under Schedule 3 to this Act, when that notice has been disposed of in accordance with the provisions of that Schedule, that declaration, if still being proceeded with or, as the case may be, that declaration as altered under paragraph 11 A of that Schedule, shall be recorded in the General Register of Sasines, and on being so recorded shall have the same effect as a conveyance registered in accordance with section 80 of the Scottish Act of 1845.

Mr. Speaker: With this we can take Amendment No. 30, in Schedule 3, in page 100, line 48, at end insert:
11A. As respects Scotland, where by virtue of paragraph 6(a), 7, 9 or 11 of this Schedule a general vesting declaration is to have effect in relation to a different area of land than that originally comprised in the declaration, the Commission shall alter accordingly the description of the land affected by the declaration.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
These linked Amendments carry out an undertaking which I gave on Report in response to various points put again by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Banff (Mr. Baker). I anticipated then that we would have to amend Clause 10 and Schedule 3, and hence the reason for the Amendment in this form. The supplementary provisions as to the vesting declaration in Schedule 3 provide, among other things, that if a declaration comprises part only of a building or area of land, then the owner can serve a notice of objection to severance of the property,

whereupon the Land Commission must withdraw the notice to treat in respect of his land or agree to take the whole or refer the matter to the Lands Tribunal in England or for a temporary period. I understand in Scotland the case would be before an official arbiter.
We all agreed that the defect was that there was no provision for amending the description of the land contained in the declaration if as a result of the notice of objection to severance, a different area of land was taken, or for stopping the declaration going on the record if objections resulted in no land being taken at all. I therefore undertook that we would try to amend this in another place and this has been done. I hope that it commends itself very much to the Opposition.

Mr. Baker: As I pointed out before Report when the hon. Gentleman was kind enough to accept an Amendment in principle about the statutory obligation for registering a vesting declaration willy-nilly in the General Register of Sasines, the general vesting declaration by virtue of which notice to treat had been given it can be dealt with only in three ways. It can either be scrapped, it can be varied or it can be extended under paragraph 6 of Schedule 3 and registration must go on in spite of paragraph 6 of Schedule 3. The inevitable result is that the registration gives a title to the Land Commission. If the heritable proprietor lodges an objection he is saying in effect—I am going to develop this point in a moment—that the Land Commission must take the whole of the land and not part. Thereupon the general vesting declaration can be varied, according to paragraph 6(b) of Schedule 3,
serve notice on him that the general vesting declaration shall have effect in relation to his interest in the land proposed to he severed, as if the whole of that land had been comprised in the declaration".
Schedule 3 with the new paragraph 11(a) does not cover the point which I am trying to make. I do not understand the Amendment now before us, and it seems that it would have been better had the Government accepted my original Amendment on Report. I agree that the Amendment is designed to rectify the somewhat ridiculous situation wherein a general vesting declaration could be withdrawn or varied. Nevertheless, as I said,


the general vesting declaration went on to the General Register of Sasines automatically and it gave the Land Commission a title as specified by paragraph 4 of Schedule 3,
If a general vesting declaration under this Act comprises part only of a house or building…any person who is able to sell the whole…may by notice served on the Commission…require them to purchase his interest in the whole".
The Lords Amendment appears only to deal with variation under paragraph 11 of Schedule 3 after reference has been made to the Lands Tribunal under paragraph 6(c),
refer the notice of objection to severance to the Lands Tribunal and notify him"—
the vendor—
that it has been so referred".
The Amendment makes no provision for a variation which has taken place at the hands of the Land Commission under paragraph 6(b) of Schedule 3, which links up with paragraph 4(1). That is where 6(b) arises, since the Land Commission can and must accept the title.
I raise only this somewhat minor point, but I hope that the Minister of State will clarify the position, particularly as part only of the land is in question.

Earl of Dalkeith: As my first word, I congratulate the Minister of State on his appointment. This is the first chance I have had to do so.
Can the hon. Gentleman explain why he did not see fit to accept the original Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Baker), and in what respects he considers that his present Amendment is better?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister may discuss why he has accepted this one. He may not discuss why he has not accepted the other one. We have only the one Amendment before us.

Earl of Dalkeith: Will he, then, explain in greater detail in what respects he thinks that this Amendment is superior?

Dr. Dickson Mabon: What the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Baker) said is perfectly fair, but he must also read paragraph 9 of the Schedule which specifically takes up paragraph 6(b). I do not

quarrel with the way he has linked paragraph 4 with paragraph 6(b), but he must take them together and complete the jigsaw—

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Lubbock: The puzzle.

Dr. Mabon: No, the jigsaw—to give a perfectly fair picture.
Will hon. Members refresh their memory by referring to column 1207 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of our proceedings on Report on 26th October? I agreed then that there was a defect. We had naturally, taken advice on it after seeing the Amendment which the hon. Gentleman had tabled. We took the advice of the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General, and the advice was that in order to deal with the defect we would have to do two things. I do not like quoting my own words, but this was the advice which I received in a letter from the Lord Advocate, and it is worth repeating now:
It is necessary to deal with the case in which the objection is upheld and also the case in which the objection is rejected. What is required is that the recording of the declaration"—
this relates only to Scotland because there is no equivalent in the English law to the process of recording—
should follow the determination by the arbiter of the objection, and in the case where he decides that severance is not to be permitted and the Commission proceed to acquire a larger area than that which they had originally proposed to amquire, a description of the whole area will be substituted for the description first contemplated."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th October 1966; Vol. 734, c. 1207.]
I admit that between the hon. Gentleman and me there was a misunderstanding about whether or not, when one did this the second time, one identified the individual parts of the new area, but I think that we have got it clear that what will happen when this process is gone through is that the area of land, whether it be the original area plus a bit of some other part or not, will be so described in the recording. I think that this is the point which the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) I—quite understand why he is not here—was pressing upon us. We have taken it as far as we reasonably can.
Their Lordships were kind enough to deal with these matters quite expeditiously, without criticism, so that we


did not have to deal with the point put to us by the noble Lord the Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith), whose good wishes I much appreciate. We did not have to argue that matter. Nevertheless, I have thought about it. The hon. Member for Banff was kind enough to give me notice of the question, and I have since taken further advice. Even apart from its having come at this late stage so that there is little that we can do about it, it is clear to us on all the evidence and advice we have taken, that the matter is now in order. I hope that the House will agree that we have done the best in the circumstances.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 19.—(ENFORCEMENT OF CROWN- HOLD COVENANTS.)

Lords Amendment: No. 19, in page 21, line 9, leave out from beginning to "crownhold" in line 11 and insert:
As respects land in Scotland, where a disposition containing a crownhold covenant, being a disposition which it is lawful to record in the General Register of Sasines, is so recorded, and in the case of any such disposition which is not so recordable, the

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This subsection was amended in the other place both in Committee and on Report, because it was clearly seen that the consequence of making crownhold covenants binding on successors whether the disposition was recorded on the General Register of Sasines or not was against the Scottish legal tradition. There was the question of non-recordable dispositions to be covered also. It was considered that, under the subsection as drafted, all recordable dispositions would be recorded and in practice, therefore, there would be no departure from the Scottish tradition, but after representations were made to us, in order to put the matter beyond doubt, the Government amended the matter further on Report in the other place.
It is possible for a crownhold covenant to be applied to a disposition, for example, of a lease for less than 31 years, which is not recordable, and it would not be appropriate, therefore, to make recording a condition of the binding of

successors without exception. It was believed that, on balance, we should agree to make an Amendment of this kind, and this is the end result. I ask the House to accept it.

Mr. Baker: We on this side are happy to accept it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clauses 27 to 85

Lords Amendment: No. 20, in page 31, leave out Clauses 27 to 85.

Mr. Willey: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I understand that the Amendment was moved on procedural grounds. I think that the Lords will wish us to restore the Clauses that the Amendment would leave out.

Mr. Graham Page: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May we seek your guidance on this, as I understand that whether we are entitled fully to debate the Minister's Motion has been questioned? My submission is that we are entitled fully to debate it.
The Motion is to restore Part III of the Bill—the betterment levy—which has provisions creating a charge on the people. But they form a separate subject in a Bill which is otherwise within the competence of another place to amend in a non-financial Bill; they are separate financial provisions in a non-financial Bill.
Eskine May says at page 841:
The right of the Lords to reject a bill for granting aids and supplies to the Crown has been held to include a right to omit provisions creating charges upon the people, when such provisions form a separate subject in a bill which the Lords are otherwise entitled to amend. The claim of privilege cannot, therefore, be raised by the Commons regarding Amendments to such bills, whereby a whole clause, or series of clauses, has been omitted by the Lords, which, though relating to a charge, and not admitting of amendment, yet concerned a subject separable from the general objects of the bill.
In the present instance, the Lords have taken that course and rejected the whole of Part III. The Government have therefore seen fit to put this general Motion on the Order Paper. I submit that we are entitled to consider and debate as a whole all the Clauses which the Government seek to restore to the Bill, not


merely those which, we are informed by HANSARD, were amended in another place before their removal from the Bill.
I submit that we are not limited in our debate by what Amendments were moved in another place. The Motion before us is that we restore the whole of Part III. We are not limited by the intentions of any noble Lord in another place in moving to leave out any particular Clauses. His intentions may have been that this House should discuss only certain parts, or certain Clauses of this Part of the Bill, when restoring it. But I think that even the most fervent supporter of another place would not argue that our debate should be regulated by an intention which motivated a noble Lord in making an Amendment in another place.
I therefore seek your guidance and ruling, Mr. Speaker, on whether the Motion is fully debatable.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman raises two points of order. I want to deal with both of them, one of which I think to be of very great importance.
I understand that Lords Amendments Nos. 20 and 31, which leave out Part III —the betterment levy—and its related Schedules were left out by the Lords on Third Reading in order to avoid infringing Commons financial privilege. I would regard Part III and the related Schedule as together forming a Bill of aids and supplies, which the Lords may not amend but which they may reject in toto without infringing Commons privilege.
As the House knows, the right of the Lords to reject a Bill for granting aids and supplies to the Crown has been held to include a right to omit provisions creating charges upon the people, when such provisions form a separate subject in a Bill which the Lords are otherwise entitled to amend. The claim of privilege cannot, therefore, be raised by the Commons regarding Amendments to such Bills, whereby a whole Clause, or a whole series of Clauses, has been omitted by the Lords, which, though relating to a charge, and not admitting of Amendment, yet concerned a subject separable from the general objects of the Bill.
The scope of the debate seems to me to embrace the whole question of whether the House should agree to the Lords Amendment or, as the Minister proposes, to disagree to it. What I am concerned

to preserve are the financial privileges of the Commons, and in my view they are in no way infringed by the Lords Amendments or by the Minister's Motion to disagree with that Amendment.
I hope that that deals with the question of privilege and of the scope of the debate.

Mr. Page: I am extremely grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for that Ruling, which has made the position very clear.
I now wish to continue with the debate and answer the Motion that the House doth disagree with the Lords in their removal of the Clauses which constitute Part III, the whole of the provisions about betterment levy.
It is very fortunate that the House has been given the opportunity to consider once again the betterment levy and the whole structure of imposition of the levy, its assessment and collection. Those are the things which are included in Part III and in Schedules 4 to 13.
I would describe the whole of that part, with its Schedules, as the great unknown. A whole series of vitally important matters is still unknown about the imposition assessment and collection of the levy, and unknown at this stage when we are not at the eleventh hour, but, I would say, the thirteenth hour of the Bill. Right at the very conclusion of debates on the Bill we still do not know many of the important things which are so essential if the levy is to be administered without causing chaos.
For example, the Bill gives no date on which the acts giving rise to the levy will rank as chargeable. It is true that the Minister has said that the appointed day will be on such and such a date, but not long ago he gave us one date and has now changed his mind and thinks it will be another. For all we know, when we pass the Bill and it receives its Royal Assent, his mind will change again. This is so important at present when such a short time may be left between the Royal Assent and the appointed day that it might be better to postpone the whole business of the levy at this stage.
That is one of the unknowns: when the levy is to take effect and on what acts. The second unknown is what transactions are to be relieved from the levy, or from notification to the Land Commission. The


levy is chargeable, by Clause 27, on six events—some small, some large. Those events may range from putting a wire across a person's property in order to get Rediffusion from one place to another, to a £100 million development. Each is to be treated alike concerning notification to the Land Commission, assessment of the net development value and assessment of the levy. But there is no doubt that the Government will be forced to exempt a substantial number of transactions, more than those stated in the Bill.
We have been told that there are to be 2,000 employees. A total of 1,800 has been recruited already. Therefore, there will be 2,000 little Canutes against this tidal wave of notifications and assessments of the levy.
8.0 p.m.
There is a Clause amongst those which have been removed from the Bill—Clauses 27 to 85—which gives the Minister power to exempt any transaction from the levy. That is Clause 63. We have never had an explanation of what it is intended should be exempt from the levy. Surely that alone gives reason for saying, "Let us agree with the Lords in their Amendment and leave these Clauses out of the Bill at present until the Minister knows exactly on what properties, on what transactions, he intends to charge the levy and requires notification to be made to the Land Commission."
A further unknown is the mysterious Case F. The Minister has met us to some extent on Case F. Originally, it was to be entirely at his discretion as to the transactions which would be chargeable under this Case. He wished to leave himself a completely blank cheque to fill in at any moment to say on this or that transaction that there shall be a levy chargeable. He has now defined a number of cases in which he can make orders applying the levy. That has merely described the limits within which he can make these orders. As far as I know no one has seen even draft orders as yet, but here we are about to finish our debates on the Bill with Case F an unknown quantity still. No one knows what is in the Minister's mind beyond the very wide boundary which he sets himself in the Clause imposing Case F.
There are three unknowns already. I have a fourth, and that is the amount of

the levy. Again, we have had a statement from the right hon. Gentleman that the levy is to be 40 per cent. of the net development value. I believe that that is the figure in his mind at present, but his mind changes on so many matters in connection with the Bill that, when it becomes a Statute, we may be told that 40 per cent. is not enough and that it has to be 45, 50 or more, or perhaps we shall have the welcome report that it is not to be 40 per cent., but 30, 25 or perhaps 20 per cent.
This is legislating on a forecast. The figure is not firm. It is not laid down in the Bill in any way. We cannot be certain that the right hon. Gentleman, perhaps persuaded by the Chancellor, may not alter that 40 per cent. before it takes effect.
In connection with the amount of the levy, we are still in doubt about the extent to which the levy is to be double taxation. If the Bill received the Royal Assent as it is at present and if there is no amendment to the present Finance Acts, there is double taxation, in this form. At present, Capital Gains Tax, Corporation Tax and the normal Income Tax paid by a dealer in land all cover the same gain for profit as is covered by the levy. A man who may be paying a high rate of tax, with Surtax on top of Income Tax, may be paying nearly 100 per cent. or perhaps even more out of the gain which he makes on the disposal or development of property.
We have been assured that that is not intended but, as the law stands, when the Bill receives the Royal Assent, that will be the position. We are told that the Finance Bill will take care of this, that the Capital Gains Tax and the Corporation Tax in future will apply only to an increase in current use value and that, because the levy starts at a base figure of current use value, no increase in current use value will be taken into account in net development value, and it is the net development value which is the basis for the charge of the levy.
That may be—in the next Finance Bill. But we have not seen the Clauses in the Finance Bill. We can only look at the law as it stands and say that, by passing the Bill, we are double-taxing a gain made out of certain transactions, taxing at 40 per cent. Corporation Tax and 40 per cent. levy.
In addition, we do not know the position of the dealer in land who always pays on the whole of his gain out of his transactions, after taking into account what he is allowed as expenses and deductions according to the normal law of Income Tax. I have not been able to discover from any Answers, from correspondence which I have had with the right hon. Gentleman or his Parliamentary Secretary, nor from debates on the Bill as yet, what is the position of a man who pays normal Income Tax on his dealings in land and what is to be taken into account against that when he pays the levy. Is it the actual amount of the levy or the net development value on which the levy has been assessed? These are matters which are unknown to us when passing this vitally important legislation.
Again, one looks at Case B, dealing with transactions by means of a lease. These transactions are to be assessed on some capitalised value of the lease based upon the future rent. It may be that the Commission, under one of the Clauses which come into this debate, will allow the person liable to the levy to pay by instalments when he is paying it out of money which he has not yet received, as, indeed, a landlord would be paying it before he receives his rent.
We do not know to what extent the Commission is prepared to grant that right to pay by instalments, nor does anyone know how the levy is to be assessed on the granting of a lease. The Clause is extremely complicated, and only when the district valuers get down to the job of making these assessments and we know the rules which they are applying can it be known how that Clause is to be interpreted.
Case C, too, is an unknown quantity. That is where the levy is payable on the commencement of a project of material development. This being such a basic concept of the Bill, one would have thought that it would be found somewhere in the Bill. It has a vague definition somewhere in the Bill, but then we are told that "material development" is to be defined by regulations, but they are regulations which have not been seen by hon. Members, unless they happen to belong to some organisation which the Minister has consulted.
I take grave exception to that. Many of us have worked for month after month on the Bill. We have debated it on the Floor of the House and in Committee. The Minister has made certain statements to us about the regulations which he intends, but the draft regulations are not distributed amongst hon. Members. They are distributed amongst professional trade organisations, and hon. Members have to go scrounging round trying to find them.

Mr. Willey: The hon. Member will recollect that I made a very full statement in Committee at the earliest opportunity and invited him and his hon. Friends to make any representations they cared to make about it.

Mr. Page: But one must see the wording of draft Regulations in order to make intelligent representations. I have read that statement again and again. We are very grateful to the Minister for making it at that stage. No doubt that was what was in his mind at the time. But I want to give one example of the degree to which this is an unknown question. In the White Paper, outdoor advertising was said to be not a material development, and in an Answer to a Question in the House it was again said to be not a material development, but I understand that now, in the draft Regulations, outdoor advertising is regarded as a material development. That is one example. The Minister is entitled to change his mind. His statement was probably made in good faith at that time. But when he considered the Question in connection with the draft Regulations he found that it was impossible to exempt that operation. Until we see these Regulations in their proper form "material development" is an unknown quantity.
One of the worst features of the Bill is that the amount of the levy can remain unknown for six years. The Commission is given six years in which to assess a levy. Let us consider the case of a man who sells his house and perhaps a large enough garden to have a reasonable amount of development value. He receives the sale money for that house and buys himself another house in which to live. He spends that money, as anyone would, without waiting to see what the Commission decides he is lable to pay at some future date. Several years later the Commission may assess the


figure and demand the money from him. This will be a matter of grave uncertainty for all those who have any transactions in property.
Other unknowns will be the factors on which the Commission or its district valuers assess the levy on any particular transaction. They are required to give notice to the person liable of the amount that he has to pay. But under the terms of the Bill they do not have to give him sufficient information to enable him to know how the levy has been calculated, and therefore to argue with the Commission that it is not the right figure.
I could go on for a long time, picking out of the Bill all the points which will be unknown to us and the public when the Measure leaves us tomorrow. This is not good enough. The Amendment made in another place has given us an opportunity to think again. The rest of the Bill could make a quite good Measure on its own. If the Minister is determined to have a Land Commission which can acquire land by compulsory purchase, can manage that land and sell it off in crown-holds and concessionary crown-holds, and so on, Part II provides what he wants. Let him proceed with that and get the Commission working. Let him drop the betterment levy altogether. It is being made law before we know its financial effects.
If we could debate this matter after we had seen the next Finance Bill it would be something, but at the moment we are dealing with this Measure—which taxes the public, although the right hon. Gentleman says that this is not a tax —without our knowing what other sums are to be taken out of the same gain or profit.
If the Government, after the public have had a chance to consider the matter further, are still determined to go ahead, let them bring back another Bill—and let us hope that it is constructed in a much better and more intelligent way than this one. I hope that the House will support another place in the Amendment, and that the betterment levy provisions will be removed, so that we may all have second thoughts and discover how it will affect individual citizens. We cannot know that as the Bill stands; therefore we should not include these Clauses.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Rossi: My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has criticised Part III for what is not in it. I want to criticise it for what is in it. Part III gives us about 50 pages of text, supplemented by another 83 pages comprising 13 Schedules—all dealing with different ways of calculating betterment levy in a variety of different transactions with land.
We objected earlier today to the provisions for compulsory purchase, which are clear enough in their content; they are arbitrary, totalitarian and authoritarian. We complain about this part of the Bill because it is completely unintelligible. This part of the Bill has given the greatest trouble because of the way in which it is drawn and seeks to operate. It has given trouble not only to Members of both Chambers but to the professional bodies who have had the misfortune to have to consider it and who in future will have to advise their clients as to their liabilities.
According to the White Paper, the underlying philosophy of a betterment levy is that it is only right that there should be returned to the community some of the value created by it in land. That theory has an attraction. It seems quite fair that if a man is holding a piece of land, and the community, by developing outwards from the centre of the town towards that land, makes it more valuable—so that, ten years after he acquired it, he is able to sell it for development purposes at a greatly enhanced price because of this community activity—part of that value should go back to the community.
But our system of taxation could be adapted to meet this situation. It could be done quite easily by an extension of the Capital Gains Tax, without this frightful morass of words, which will cause the utmost difficulty in years to come. Citizens will not know where they stand. Their advisers will not be able to tell them. The Minister knows this, because he has had consultations with professional bodies who have told him that the Bill is unintelligible and virtually unworkable.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby mentioned Regulations that various bodies have been receiving but


which hon. Members have not yet seen. These professional bodies are finding the regulations as unintelligible as they have found the Bill, and they consider it a gross imposition put upon them by the Government that they must consider and advise the Government on these regulations by the appointed day of 6th April. They consider this task barely possible, but they are being rushed by the Government's insistence on bringing the legislation into operation this spring.
This will boomerang on the Government's head in due course when the working out of this policy is felt by the ordinary men and women in the street. Our debates, dealing as they do with various subsections and paragraphs, have been highly technical throughout the Bill and scarcely understandable by ourselves —certainly not understood by the public. But when these provisions begin operating as an Act people will begin to see that every sale of a house, every lease of a house, the grant of a right of way over a plot of land, an application to change the use of one's property—all these matters will have to be notified to the authorities, and then, within a period of six years after the notification, one will get a bill calculated on one of the many formulæ which occupy 130 pages of text and 13 Schedules of the Bill. The people of this country will scarcely be able to do anything with the little bit of land which they own without attracting the provisions of the Act. Then they will have to rush to solicitors and valuers to ask them to explain the provisions—only to find that their advisers are almost as much in the dark as they are.
At an earlier stage I had some amusement with the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary on one of the Schedules in trying to see how the Estate Duty provisions work. I produced a formula which looks very attractive on paper. But you have to apply this formula to your own personal affairs or the affairs of your family at some stage. I do not mean you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although you and your family will be included and so will all our families.
I asked the Minister whether my formula was accurate, and he said that he thought that it was approximately right. This was several months ago. I

asked him to write to me to tell me whether it was accurate. I have not been told that it was not accurate, and yet when I produced the formula I included a symbol "X" to represent an unknown factor. That unknown factor is still an unknown factor, and yet within a few months the Bill will become law and these formulæ will have to be operated. It will cause the gravest possible difficulty.
It is iniquitous that a man who sells his property and negotiates and receives his price should then have to wait possibly up to six years before he knows the amount of the levy or tax that he has to pay on that transaction. When a man sells a house, invariably he buys another. He makes his mortgage arrangements and enters into what is for him possibly the most important financial transaction of his life. He has to balance his finances very carefully. He knows what he is getting for his house, what he has to pay for the next house, what he has to borrow from the bank to bridge the loan, and what he has to borrow from the building society. He knows how much he is earning. He works it all out very closely, and then six years later the Government say, "We want £400 or £500". This is intolerable.
There is a later Amendment which would compel the Government to make up their minds what the tax will be within six months of the transaction, not six years. That is the kind of speed we want from the so-called efficient machinery which the great Socialist Party are building in this country. Let us see activity of this kind, which helps the citizen and does not penalise him. Then the Government can go back to the electorate saying that the action was taken for the benefit of the men and women of this country, instead of producing such Measures as this which takes their property away from them under odious special procedures and then taxes them on every little transaction they seek to undertake with their land.
This is a very one-sided business. We are told that if the value of the property is increased by an act of the community, one must pay part of the value to the community. On the face of it, that appears to be fair. But suppose the value of one's property is reduced by an act of


the community. Suppose next to one's semi-detached house in a London suburb the transport authority builds a fly-over and one has cars travelling past one's bedroom window day and night through the act of the community. When one wishes to sell that house, one will not get the same price as that originally paid for it. Do the Government give a worsenment payment because of the act of the community? No. It is ready to take, apparently, but it will not give.
This is Socialism in operation—"Let us grab, boys, while we can. Let us grind our citizens into the dust." This is what the betterment levy is doing and what the whole of this wretched Bill is doing. It is in the tradition of wages and prices restraint and State control. We are marching to the Socialist millenium in which it is the State which counts for everything and the individual counts for nothing. This is just another aspect of this Socialist philosophy, against which the people of this country will one day rebel.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I was particularly interested in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi), as I always am, and more especially in the observations which he made in the concluding part of his speech about what he called "worsenment". I recall that on Second Reading, when the Bill was originally introduced in the last Parliament on 31st January last year, in the course of observations with which I then ventured to detain the House I put forward an argument for the application of some system of recoupment for worsenment as an inescapably logical parallel to the recoupment of betterment by the community—a principle in which I have always believed and which I have advocated over a considerable period. No doubt the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) is about to rise in his place to confirm the accuracy of my recollection.

Mr. J. T. Price: I accept that, but I was getting worried because the right hon. and learned Gentleman appeared to use a new bastard word "worsenment". Have we not enough of these horrible words on the record without a new one? This is what worries me, because I regard the right hon. and

learned Gentleman as one who believes in the purity of the English language. I hope that he will not introduce another dreadful word such as "worsenment".

8.30 p.m.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I am obliged to the hon. Member, whom I have known for a long time, for the compliment which he paid me on my regard for the purity of the English language. I regret to have to tell him and the House that this is a subject which is very prone to jargon of a somewhat inelegant sort. My recollection is that when I used the term on 31st January I apologised for it, but it seems to me the only word that accurately describes what I have in mind—the payment back to the individual citizen by the community of some compensation when a great motorway or a great airfield or something of the sort introduces considerable detriment to the amenity of his property. When that happens, surely in logic he should be entitled to some compensation. I agree that "worsenment" is a horrible word, but even more horrible is the effect of these things on the unfortunate citizen when they happen. I see the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) here, and I am sure that he would second my observations in this regard because of his very proper preoccupation with the effects of noise upon the citizen.
We are engaged on the discussion of a very unusual Amendment because it is designed to leave out a large part of the Bill. The scope and magnitude of the Amendment, which the other place has proposed, is in itself a condemnation of the Government's attitude to attempts to improve the Bill. The fact that they have found it necessary to seek to omit so large a part of the Measure is a sign of the exasperation they feel at the difficulty of getting the Government to accept reasonable improvements in the Bill. It is a condemnation, therefore, of the obstinacy of the Government and their unwillingness to profit by the experience of people who are able to make constructive suggestions.
It is an odd attitude, more particularly in view of the unanimous consensus of opinion outside which takes the view not only that the Bill calls for improvement but positively cries out for it. The


Government, instead of turning their backs so resolutely on all efforts to improve the Bill, should welcome them.
Of course, if the Amendment of the other place were given effect, there would be no betterment levy at all. That is not a position which I would wish to see established. I have believed for a long time in the principle that the community should have the benefit of community created values, so far as one can assess them. It is known that I have taken this view. It is not a heterodox view from the point of view of the Conservative Party because Section 21 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932—which is going back a fair way—provides for the recoupment of betterment. That has been Conservative policy in the past and I have always believed in it. I would like, therefore, to see reasonable provision for the recoupment of betterment, but there are certain pre-requisites that must obtain before one can have such a satisfactory system.
Broadly, they fall into two categories. The first pre-requisites are common to any system of taxation. I know that the present Ministers do not like to have the levy classified as a tax, but the difference between a levy and a tax is small to those who must pay it. So the first pre-requisites are common to all taxation that it should be just, comprehnsible and relatively easy to administer.
The second set of pre-requisites applies in particular to the recovery of betterment; that is, that any system for the recovery of betterment must not distort the market in land and, above all, must not dry up the supply of land for desirable development, which is the main positive purpose of town and country planning.
The betterment levy which is provided for in Part III of the Bill and the relevant Schedules unfortunately fails to satisfy either of these tests. Indeed, it makes the worst of both worlds. It combines a confusion in application with a considerable administrative burden and also an obviously adverse effect on the future operation of the market in land and the supply of land for desirable development.
The Government would be wise to take warning from the fate of the corresponding provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. The House will

recall the provisions for the recoupment of betterment contained in the ill-fated Part VII of that Act, with the imposition of the 100 per cent. development charges. The period of operation of Part VII of the 1947 Act, in the words familiar of the philosopher Hobbes, was
…nasty, poor, brutish and short".
They were introduced on 1st July, 1948, the appointed day under the 1947 Act, and they came to an end, virtually unmourned, on 18th November, 1952—less than four and a half years' period of life for a system of development charges which was introduced with great confidence by the Ministers of that Administration, who commanded an even larger and more passively obedient majority than the present Government.
The Encyclopaedia of Town and Country Planning, a work which is of great assistance to many of us, describes, in a masterpiece of understatement and with commendable political objectivity, the history of those development charges by merely saying that they were the subject of a certain amount of criticism between 1948 and 1952. It is something that could be described in much more colourful terms. But, speaking as I always do, in an objective and dispassionate way, I do not exaggerate when I say that by the end of 1952 the development charges system could no longer continue. The charges were then repealed and that exercise left for this Government and the House a lesson which apparently hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have refused to learn. The lesson clearly was that it is no use the Government trying to legislate on these matters in the teeth of the facts and despite the operation of the market. It is, as Virgil said in another context—and, of course, another language—in his agricultural poem:
The more you expel nature, the more she returns with a fork".
The more the Government seek to expel the operation of the market, the more it returns. That has been shown to be the case.
I saw the Parliamentary Secretary making a careful pencil note of the point. No doubt he is going to say that the failure of development charges in the 1947 Act was due to the fact that they were unwisely rated at 100 per cent. and that he and his right hon. Friend have


avoided that patent error on the occasion of Part III of this Bill. They have avoided that error; I gladly say so. It is good to think that even this Government are able to avoid one error when it is so clearly spread before them.
But, though that no doubt was a very strong contributory cause of the ignominious collapse of the development charges of the then Socialist Administration, it was not the only one. The development charges were found to be unworkable, intractable and impracticable—all things which we can charge against the provisions in relation to betterment levy under Part III of this Bill. The development charges did exactly what the betterment levy will do if it is not put in a more workable and practicable form. They wholly distorted the market in land and dried up the market in land for desirable development.
It is right that we should have in mind some comparison between the present provisions and those of the 1947 Act because we know what happened to the relevant provisions of that Act. Nevertheless, apart from the fact that the 1947 Act prescribed 100 per cent. development charge and this Bill, as I have fairly said, avoids that basic error, in other respects—notably in respect of brevity and ease of comprehension—there is no doubt at all that the 1947 Act was immeasurably superior to the Bill now before the House which the other place has made a commendable and public-spirited effort to improve which right hon. Gentlemen opposite are now asking this House to reject.
I do not want to weary the House with more than one or two short statistics on this but I shall give one or two because I think they make the comparison far more clearly than any mere argument would. The relevant provisions of the 1947 Act were contained in Part VII, which dealt with the development charges, and Part VIII, which dealt with the application to special cases. Part VII contained six Sections. Part VIII contained 18 Sections. Only one of the Schedules of that Act dealt with the matter of development charges or, as we would now say, betterment levy. That was the Third Schedule, and it contained only six paragraphs.
That is the picture in regard to the 1947 Act The House can compare and

contrast it with the contents of the present Bill. Part III, which is the subject of this Amendment, contains no fewer than 58 Clauses and the relevant Schedules, the subject of a later Amendment, No. 33, which the other place has also been constrained to move to omit, on my computation contains no fewer than 241 paragraphs. Hon. Members are responsible for the facts they give, but I am not a mathematician. A computer is not as yet part of the ordinary equipment of a Queen's Counsel, so I add "E. & O.E.". If the Parliamentary Secretary finds that I am one or two out, he is welcome to such reinforcement as that may give to his argument.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Percy Grieve: That is the only point that the hon. Gentleman will be able to make.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: My hon. and learned Friend says that that is the only point the Parliamentary Secretary may be able to make, but he will not be able to make that one if the number is exactly 241. Suppose it is about 241, the position we get is that there are two-and-a-half times as many Clauses in this Bill on this subject as there were in the ill-fated 1947 Act and there is 30 times as much Schedule matter dealing with betterment levy in this Bill. The hon. Gentleman will say in a moment that it is incapable of improvement or simplification. Comparisons are notoriously odious, but they may be very illuminating. I suggest that they are very illuminating on this occasion.
It is not as if we were comparing this Bill with a Measure which is an acknowledged example of clarity and brevity. On the contrary, until Ministers in the present Administration saw fit to introduce this Bill, the 1947 Act had the doubtful honour of being rated as a Measure notoriously complex and difficult. It was a measure so notoriously complex and difficult that all the development charge provisions foundered because of their impracticability.
Through all the 20 years which separate us from the debates in which I participated in those days on that Act—and I have lived pretty closely with its consequences ever since—I had never thought in my wildest moments that I should ever stand up in this House or anywhere else


and pray in aid the 1947 Act as a favourable comparison in the context of clarity and brevity. In the world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. Compared with this Bill, the 1947 Act is a Measure of reasonable clarity and brevity, although, I hasten to say, by no other standards.
I suggest that there is only one conclusion that the House can or should draw from that comparison. Knowing what happened to Part VII of the 1947 Act, superior as it was in these basic ingredients to these present provisions, what hope can there be for Part III of the Bill in its present and unamended form? It is clear that there can be no hope indeed. If the Government are resolved to turn their back on all possibilities of constructive amendment and improvement, we will relive all this weary history again and see in due course this Measure grind to a halt because of its administrative impracticability. It will not matter much to right hon. Gentlemen opposite. They will say, "It was a pity but it was worth trying. After all, we had something in our election address". But it will matter a great deal to all the citizens who suffer from it.
Therefore, I make this appeal to the Minister. The Government should free themselves from all obstinate pride of authorship in respect of the Bill. They should take to heart the words of the exhortation of Cromwell and conceive it possible that they may be wrong.
There is nothing to be ashamed of in not getting right at the first attempt the formulation of such a complex, difficult intricate and technical, matter. The only thing to be ashamed of will be if right hon. and hon. Members opposite persist in error, in spite of advice and in spite of the efforts of the other place to help them, and then bring upon the community a great deal of difficulty and detriment which they could have avoided. That will then be a matter for regret and shame and it will be a matter in which the electorate will not be uninterested when the time comes when they have felt the effects of all this.
I do not want to stop the application of a levy, but I want to avoid the difficulties and drawbacks which will inevitably flow from an attempt to impose it in its present form.
The Government should therefore accept the Amendment of the other place and take the opportunity to recast Part III of the Bill and the relevant Schedules in a more acceptable and practical form, heeding experience and accepting counsel given in good faith and against the background of knowledge with the sole object of improving these provisions and lessening the hurt that, in their present form, they will inevitably do to the community at large.

Mr. Farr: I trust that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) will forgive me if I do not follow his argument too closely. I would like, however, to endorse his plea relating to computers and to say that it is not only Queen's Counsel who should be equipped with these instruments. I suggest that when we endeavour to understand Measures of this nature, every humble back-bencher should have immediate and urgent access to these machines. If my right hon. and learned Friend would table an Early-Day Motion to that effect, I am sure that all the members of the Land Commission Bill Standing Committee would rally round him and add their signatures in support.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Does my hon. Friend think that in present conditions, in the state of the economy to which the maladministration of Her Majesty's present Ministers has brought us, this would be a timely moment to bring forward that useful proposal, which must necessarily cast an additional burden upon the public purse, which is already subject to such very heavy pressures?

Mr. Farr: As right hon. and hon. Members opposite seem to concentrate all their time on buying foreign-made equipment wherever possible, and as I should hate to see American computers used instead of British, it would probably be inadvisable for us to proceed—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is an interesting diversion, but I hope that the hon. Member will now come back to the Amendment.

Mr. Farr: I wish briefly to speak of the merit in leaving out the whole of Part III of the Bill. We had some discussion before we started to talk about Part III in earnest and it is obvious that


the Amendments which were made in another place have been well received by the country as a whole. One of the most constructive Amendments is that to leave out the whole of Part III.
Later tonight, subject to Part III being restored to the Bill, we will discuss certain detailed applications and Amendments to it. Of the total number of Clauses in the Bill, no fewer than 59 are to be found in this Part, and 10 of the 17 complicated Schedules in the Bill are to be found in Part III.
It is this ghastly attempt to try to legislate for every conceivable and inconceivable eventuality which has made such burdensome nonsense of this Part of the Bill.
Moreover, this part does not follow the intentions which were laid down in the White Paper on the Land Commission which was published in September 1965. Page 4 of the White Paper under the heading "The Objectives" in paragraph 7(2) says that one of the objectives of the Land Commission will be:
to secure that a substantial part of the development value created by the community returns to the community and that the burden of the cost of land for essential purposes is reduced.
The restoration of Part III will do nothing to bring down the cost of building land. On the contrary, the passing of the Bill, including Part III, will have the result of putting up the price of building land.
Hon. Members opposite must surely see this pattern being followed in many other instances. If, for instance, a tax is put upon cigarettes, or on any other commodity, the shopkeeper who sells the cigarettes does not bear the burden of the tax himself. He cannot afford to do so. He has to pass it on to the consumer. By the same principle, those who have a certain amount of land which is suitable for development, which is ripe for development—and which they perhaps have to realise because they are nearing the age of retirement—will not endeavour to absorb the full effect of the 40 per cent. or 50 per cent. betterment levy themselves. They will be inclined to pass on some of it to the customer.
One thing is certain. Whatever the results of the Bill, one of the certain conclusions is that the price of building land can only be made more expensive, which,

coupled with the intolerable mortgage rate of more than 7 per cent., the difficulty of bank loans, and so on will make the lot of the owner-occupier, the little person struggling to buy his own house and home, that much more difficult.
We would not like to see Part III amended. We think that it is beyond hope. We think it is rather like trying to patch up a leaky wine skin with new leather, because wherever the patches are made another rent appears. It is just the same with Part III of the Bill. We would like to see the whole cumbersome rigmarole swept away and in its place a fair, modest and simple tax on betterment value which can be most economically exacted through the present taxation system.
Part III of the Bill is full of gross injustices and anomalies. As I have said, later on this evening we hope to discuss some of them, assuming that the Government persist in their intention to restore Part III of the Bill.
It might be useful now to mention some of the most obvious and glaring injustices. One matter on which the House should reflect for a moment is the grossly privileged position in which local authorities are placed. Many of my hon. Friends and I are not at all sure—and I know that there is some disquiet among hon. Members opposite—that it is absolutely right that local authorities building on their own account should be exempt from the payment of levy while some wretched private builder, struggling to develop a housing estate adjoining a local authority site, has to pay the full development levy on his houses. It will take some time for the effect to work through the pipeline, but sooner or later the prices of houses built by private firms, like for like, must be more expensive than those provided by local authorities, simply because local authorities will be in the privileged position of not paying any development levy.
9.0 p.m.
Another matter which should be discussed in that connection is the fact that unless he gets on with the job fairly quickly—I think that it is a two-year period—the wretched private builder will be liable to pay double development levy. On some of the big multiple sites, which are being knocked down and redeveloped


all over London and the rest of the country, it sometimes takes a firm many years to acquire all the land. There may be an odd lease here or a tenancy there of which it is sometimes very difficult to obtain possession. If this part is returned to the Bill and a builder is required to start work on a scheme within two years of acquiring the land, major schemes requiring five, or six, or even twenty years before all the land is available for comprehensive redevelopment will not be undertaken, simply because the period of waiting will put the builders in an even more difficult position with the levy.
Another matter which we shall be discussing later is the privileged position of the nationalised undertakings. No doubt we shall have a word or two to say about the callous disregard which the Government are showing of charities, their complete and utter disregard of the pitiful case of small owner-occupiers and their equally unfair treatment of the owners of mineral rights.
We discussed the latter matter when the Bill was before the House last year, but since the Bill went to another place it has become transparently obvious to anyone studying the debates of another place that there has been an under-cover deal between the Government and the mineral operators, that there has been a lot of hush-hush stuff about which the House knows nothing and about which another place knows nothing and which has never been accepted by or communicated to the owners of mineral rights. It is obvious that the Government did a deal with the operators. They are working to a scheme which is to be put into effect largely by regulation. The Government's stubborn refusal to accept what is generally regarded by those who are concerned with mineral operations as a fair and reasonable suggestion—that instead of compulsorily acquiring land and minerals, the full panoply of powers of the Bill should allow the wretched owners to continue with their title to the land—reinforces this view. The fact that they were unable to accept that fair solution is an additional reason for condemning this part of the Bill.
One could go on at considerable length picking holes in the Bill. One could go on giving one's own opinions and the opinions of those who are far more quali-

fied than I and many other hon. Members —the experts, whether they be lawyers like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East, valuers, taxation experts or accountants. They are all agreed that the Bill is a hopeless mumbo jumbo.
One of the biggest pieces of hocus pocus in this part of the Bill is the definition of a notifiable event. I want to illustrate Case E and its application to the farming community. Many farms, particularly those near towns, have pylons running over them as well as telephone wires. Many also have gas pipelines and water pipes running underneath as well.
Many farmers grant some kind of easement for a pipeline under their land or a wire or cable over it. Naturally enough, this is reflected in a small annual payment to the farmer. But in each case the way-leave is a considerable nuisance to the man who has to earn his living from the land. In some cases he only gets 2s. or 3s. per telegraph pole but there is cost and inconvenience to him every time he sends a man into the field to work it. The man has to go round all the poles and leave the nettle and weed patches.
Yet, under the terms of Part III, the fact that the wretched farmer gets 2s. or 3s. a year for half a dozen telegraph poles becomes a notifiable event under Case E and becomes subject to a development levy being paid upon it at the rate of 40 per cent. This is nonsense. It is petty-fogging nonsense for a farmer to have to report to the Land Commission when an event like that has occurred, when a wayleave or easement has been arranged under Case E. Presumably the Land Commission will send men to check whether he is telling the truth and to see where the wires run and whether the levy should be a few shillings per annum. It will all be a waste of time and a complete nonsense.
Part III is no improvement to the Bill. The Bill was considered very carefully in the Lords and, as has been said, many of the Amendments they made were widely recognised and accepted in the country. I ask the Minister to show the same wisdom over this Amendment that he has shown over one or two of the others and be good enough to admit that he has made a mistake this time. We will forgive him with pleasure and moreover will understand him as being a human


man for the first time. I hope that he will speak up graciously and say that he sees the wisdom of our case and accept the Amendment.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), I am very far from being against the idea of a charge on increased value realised as the result of the grant of planning permission. One of my objections to the provisions of the levy in this Bill is that there is this complexity, this incredibly wide scope, and the administrative problems created which will almost certainly be such as to discredit the whole concept of such a charge. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, it will be for only a limited number of years that such a scheme will attempt to operate before it collapses under its own weight. When I say that I am not against the idea of some sort of charge of this kind, I can call in aid, as the House may recall, that it fell to me nearly two years ago to express the views of my party in respect of a charge on the increased values gained as the result of the grant of planning permission.
What we had in mind then, and still have in mind, is something quite unlike this, a tax levied properly and efficiently through the normal machinery of the Inland Revenue, not through this constitutional abortion of a Land Commission, but by efficient people, skilled in the collection of taxes, and related to substantial transactions where the grant of planning permission appreciably increases the value of someone's land. This would be in cases where most people would feel that ordinary taxation should operate.
This scheme is profoundly different. One has only to look at Clauses 37 to 43 to understand what I mean. Does the House appreciate the vast number of tiny and unimportant transactions and actions committed by people in respect of their own land which have to be reported to the Land Commission, under threat of criminal penalties if they are not so reported, in order that the Land Commission may consider whether a levy should be imposed? The House will recall that this lethargic body is to be given no less than six years during which it can decide whether to impose such

a charge and what that should be. That is why I feel that this is the kind of thing that discredits a sensible taxation concept, by introducing a levy demonstrably unworkable and imposing a quite appalling burden on the ordinary citizen.
Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that the ordinary citizen who grants a wayleave to someone putting lines over his land will always solemnly report this to the Commission and then wait in tense anxiety for six years to learn the financial results of his so doing? This is the kind of thing that brings discredit to any system of taxation. Taxation at this level of 40 per cent. of development value to begin with, openly stated to rise to 45 per cent. and 50 per cent. thereafter, must surely inflate the price of land. I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman's memory goes back to the time when he introduced the previous Bill in the previous Parliament.
I can remember then that he made a great point of the view that this Measure would reduce the price of land. Does he really think so now? If so, will he explain why alone of taxes, a tax of this kind will lower the price of the commodity on which it falls? I am bound to say that one has always assumed that the effect of taxation, and sometimes its purpose, is to increase the price of the commodity on which it falls. This has been the whole argument of Government financial policy for the last two years, that by increasing indirect taxation one diminishes the amount of purchasing power and operates against inflation. This does not seem to have worked here but this is what the Chancellor has been telling us again and again. Why, in this case, does the right hon. Gentleman think that a swingeing tax at this high and rising level will reduce prices? What evidence has he to support the proposition that in the case of land alone that will be the effect?
9.15 p.m.
The right hon. Gentleman has said before that there is a sort of price which land will command, that people will not pay more for it, and if there is a tax imposed the vendor will take less. But if that proposition be true of land, is it true of cigarettes, beer, or all the other commodities falling under Purchase Tax? The House knows that, when taxation is increased upon those things, prices rise


almost precisely in proportion, and sometimes more than in proportion, to the increase in tax.
Whatever else the Bill does, it will as a result of these Clauses greatly inflate the price of land and make housing more expensive. This will not be the working of blind economic forces but it will be the direct consequence of measures taken by the Government, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate his heavy responsibility in that respect.
I take next the disposition of the levy. The Parliamentary Secretary may recall that, when he answered some questions put to him by the distinguished publication, The Local Government Chronicle, for its issue of 31st December last, he said:
The benefits from the levy on betterment will go in the main to local authorities. This intention is being implemented already by the increased grants under the Local Government Act, 1966 and increased subsidies, including those for expensive sites, in the Housing Subsidies Bill".
If that were true, it would be remarkable because the levy is not operating now. But his own Minister does not pretend that it is true. Earlier this week, I asked him how it would operate, and he referred me to an Answer he had given to his hon. Friend the Member for Salford East (Mr. Frank Allaun) the same day:
The yield from the levy is a factor of which general account has been taken in considering the support which the Government are giving to local authorities under various measures. It would be impracticable and inequitable to relate this assistance directly to the levy raised in particular authorities' areas rather than to the needs and resources of the authorities."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd January, 1967; Vol. 739, c. 947.]
That is very different from what the Parliamentary Secretary said. It is clear that the Government are not relating such yield as there may be from the levy to the aid they give to local authorities. It is, in the Minister's words, a factor to be considered in connection with it.
But if it is even to be that, the right hon. Gentleman must have some knowledge of what the yield will be. He has to this point declined to tell us what the net yield will be, yet, if it is to be taken into account in the aid given to local authorities, the Government must know the net yield. How can they take it into

account otherwise? The gross yield is irrelevant because it would simply mean that less was collected by way of Income Tax, the old Profits Tax, Corporation Tax, Surtax and so on. If it is really intended to enable the Government to help local authorities, the only figure that matters is the net yield.
The right hon. Gentleman has been asked again and again what he expects the net yield to be, and he has always refused to answer. I do not know whether he has refused because he does not know or because he knows that it will be so derisory as to discredit the Bill. Those are, I think, the only two interpretations to put on his attitude. We have before us now all the Clauses under which the levy is to be imposed. Will the right hon. Gentleman still adopt the attitude that, after nearly two years of Parliamentary debate, he will ask the House to impose a tax without confiding to it how much money net he expects it to yield? After all, we can only judge a tax on what it brings in—what it brings in net. Therefore, not only all this stuff about helping local authorities but the whole justification of the tax turns on how much the right hon. Gentleman expects to get. Will he tell us?

Mr. Clegg: My right hon. and hon. Friends have pleaded with the Minister to take notice of what the other place said and withdraw the provisions of Part III. Looking through my crystal ball, I do not feel that he will accede to their requests, and I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has found out why, because I also have had my attention drawn to the replies which the Minister gave to the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) on Monday. In my view of what he said, the Government have spent most of the levy before they have even started to raise it. I am concerned that he said:
I remove that doubt at once by saying that a considerable part of the levy will go to aid local authorities."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd January, 1966; Vol. 739, c. 947.]
I am very much concerned with how the provisions of Part III will bring down the price of land to owner-occupiers. I can find no means whereby this can be done under Part III, because the levy is paid to the Exchequer. It may be said that more crownhold land may be


available, because the Exchequer will help the Commission. But there is no warranty of that in the Bill, and in any event we have never been able to find out just how crownhold would be allocated.
Therefore, I do not think that the Minister is in a position to withdraw the provisions, for otherwise all the calculations that have gone into the new measures under the Housing Subsidies Bill will fall to the ground, because in his Answer he spoke in the past tense. But the main electoral point which the Labour Party made with the levy was that it would help bring down the price of land. I have heard nothing today —there has been nothing but a deathly silence from the other side on Part III —or in Committee which would lead me to believe that future owner-occupiers can in any way be helped by having land made cheaper for them. There is no machinery there for—

Mr. Speaker: If there is no machinery, and the levy is not doing what the hon. Member says it does not do. But the hon. Member can only discuss at the moment what the levy is doing.

Mr. Clegg: The other side of the argument is that the levy is putting up the price of land, in contradistinction to the promises made by the right hon. Gentleman at the General Election.
I also think that too little notice has been taken by the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary of the genuine fears of the provisions. As a solicitor, I know from talking to my colleagues that they are gloomy and extremely worried about being able to understand the Bill and advise their clients. It will not be easy—certainly in the first stages, until we have had experience of how the district valuer will value and until we know how the Commission will assess the levy—to advise on the sale of private houses, especially those with land or in the centre of cities and to say that the levy will or will not be paid. That is very difficult to advise.
The Minister says that a great many private household transactions will be outside the scope of the levy, because there will be no development value. But he will be a very brave solicitor who

says to his client, until he knows how things will work out, "Put all your money from this transaction into another house, because you will not have to pay any levy." He knows that, if he is ever sued for negligence, it is no good his going to court and saying that the Minister said in discussions that it would not affect a great many private houses. That would be no protection for him at all. These are very real fears which my profession and others have.
I would agree with everything which has been said from this side of the House about the incomprehensibility which has been added to the complexity of the Bill. I want to reinforce what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) has said in comparing it with the 1947 Act.
The right hon. Gentleman has heard two speeches from this side, one by my right hon. and learned Friend and the other by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, both of whom say, "We do not disagree with the fundamental idea of a levy, but we think that there are other ways of doing it." They are not asking the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the Bill because they are against the levy. They fear that he has produced a monster which is unworkable. On that ground alone, I should have thought that he could accede to what the other place wants him to do.

Mr. Tony Gardner: When the Government first announced their proposals dealing with land and, in particular, those dealing with the levy, one of the things which disturbed me was the sighs of relief with which the proposals were greeted by the professional bodies to which the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) was referring, particularly the property-owning associations.
I find a striking contrast between statements which were made at that time and the kind of remark which we have heard during this debate. I do not know what has brought about the great change. I do not know why, suddenly, we are treated to these lavish statements. I can only suppose that the kind of debate which we are having is a reflection on current opinion polls and comments in the national Press instructing


the Opposition that it is about time that they started opposing.

Mr. Clegg: Would the hon. Gentleman like to say what evidence he has that my own profession greeted the White Paper with sighs of relief?

Mr. Eyre: Would the hon. Gentleman care to quote evidence from the journal of any learned body to support his contention that there were sighs of relief when the Bill was first introduced?

Mr. Gardner: I well recall that, in the week following the announcement of these proposals, some national newspapers expressed surprise at the remarks which were made. Some of them were along the lines of, "The Bill is nowhere near as bad as we thought", and so on. However, I will leave that, because I am much more concerned in this debate to correct one point.
Throughout the past few weeks, there has been a national campaign waged, undoubtedly with the intention of frightening owner-occupiers. We are prevented from discussing the general aspects of the campaign in relation to Part III, but one aspect of it has been the attempt to spread doubts in the minds of owner-occupiers about whether they are liable for the levy.
It needs saying in the House that, in any case, only between 85 and 90 per cent. of transactions involving owner-occupiers who dispose of their property are likely to attract the levy.
9.30 p.m.
We ought to consider the difficult cases to which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have referred—the cases that may attract the levy. I can assure them that if difficult cases arise where injustice has been done or is likely to be done, not only hon. Members opposite but hon. Members on this side will have a great deal to say to the Minister, but if it is true that an owner-occupier stands to gain in quite substantial terms as a result of the transsaction if he sells his house for some purpose other than owner-occupation, the transaction should attract levy.

Mr. Ian Percival: I understood the hon. Member to say that these levy provisions would not affect 85 or 90 per cent. of owner-occupiers. Would it not be more accurate to say that they

affect all owner-occupiers but that after going through all the paraphernalia of theses Clauses it may turn out that in many cases that work will be wasted because it may be that—

Mr. Gardner: A comparatively small number will attract the levy.

Mr. Percival: Yes.

Sir S. McAdden: Will the hon. Member give us his evidence for saying that 85 or 90 per cent. will not be affected? He is not the Land Commission. How does he know?

Mr. Gardner: We are here concerned only with those transactions which involve a change in the use of the land in question. We are not concerned with a man who sells his house to a purchaser who wants to continue in owner-occupation.

Mr. John Wells: On a point of order. With the greatest respect to the hon. Member, I hope that the HANSARD reporters will quote precisely verbatim in tomorrow's OFFICIAL REPORT the hocus-pocus rubbish that he is talking.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member knows that that is not a point of order.

Mr. Gardner: I want to turn to the much more important question of the attitude of some hon. Members opposite to the problem of betterment and the general question of raising some kind of taxation on betterment value. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are quite sincere in what they have been saying. I am sure that they wish to overcome the problem. But I have been looking back over the records for many years, and I find that although there were some loud trumpetings from the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) and some of his colleagues, all their trumpetings failed to move the walls of Jericho on the then Government Front Bench. I saw no proposals for a kind of taxation to take up the betterment levy that were acceptable to the then Government.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the hon. Member recall that the walls of Jericho were ultimately absolutely destroyed by a violent explosion?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ruled that this was a broad debate, but not a scriptural one.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot have intervention upon intervention.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner) has not yet replied to the first intervention.

Mr. Gardner: I am pleased to hear that the Opposition now take the view they do, but there is no such view on the record, and I saw no such view expressed in the election manifestoes of the party opposite. Only now, when this Government are taking occasion to gain some of this betterment for the community, does this view appear.
The main reason for my intervening was to say that if my right hon. Friend were to take the Opposition at their word and withdraw the whole of the Clause and replace it with some kind of taxation—the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) mentioned the use of the Capital Gains Tax—I am certain that if my right hon. Friend withdrew this part of the Bill—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hypotheses are very interesting, but we have long passed the stage when it is in order to discuss alternatives to what the House is deciding shall either remain in the Bill or be taken out of the Bill.

Mr. Gardner: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I was led astray by various suggestions of alternatives which have been made. I am convinced that we shall have this debate over and over again on other evenings and that the cries of the Opposition would be just as strong and as loud if another alternative were provided. We have an opportunity here to show that the community means business, and that it means to take a reasonable share of the betterment levy. I hope that when he replies to the debate my right hon. Friend will make it clear that he intends to proceed.

Mr. J. T. Price: I rise only to make a brief intervention, in the hope that I may be able to restore a little equilibrium to the debate, which has been one-way traffic

for several hours. I respect the views put forward by some very senior right hon. Gentleman opposite, including some right hon. and learned Gentlemen who have made a great study of this question. But I have been long enough in the House to know that whenever a major attack is made upon the property interests of the country, the House becomes like the wailing wall of Jerusalem.
I have listened with a good deal of humour and tolerance, I hope, for some time to speeches directed critically at my right hon. Friend about these Clauses which their Lordships want to remove from the Bill. Let me confess straight away that I am not a particularly enthusiastic supporter of this piece of legislation, but that is not to say that I do not agree with its intention—and I am more concerned with the intention which lies behind the legislation than with the technical machinery which, rightly or wrongly, my right hon. Friend has seen fit to put before the House.
I have been long enough in the House to know what sort of an abortion the 1947 Act was; I always thought that it was an ill-considered Measure. In the event, it was removed from the Statute Book, but it was not removed simply because it was ineffective or, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, it was inoperable; it was removed because of the change of Government and because the Tory Party, who, even in the days of William Cobbett and his "Rural Rides"—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Speaker is generous, but he draws the line at Cobbett. I hope that the hon. Member will come back to the Amendment.

Mr. Price: Perhaps you were not in the Chair, Mr. Speaker, when the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) quoted various literary figures, including Virgil. I thought that I was adding to the grace of the debate by giving another famous authority.

Sir S. McAdden: On a point of order. I hesitate to question your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but would you give an assurance that the question of Cobbett's shop and whether it appreciated in value is a subject which comes within the betterment levy and therefore is in order?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that that was exactly what the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) was arguing.

Mr. Price: I have been led astray in my attempts to make a good-humoured contribution to the debate. But let no one think that I am dealing with these point flippantly. I have listened with great respect to very senior and legal members of the House. Both the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East and the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), who are authorities on the matter and have declared their interest, agree in principle that the community should collect betterment on land which has appreciated in value because of the needs of the development of the community in which we all live. That is a declaration of faith which I share with them. In my younger days, when I thought that I knew much more about these matters than I feel that I know now, I saw things much more in black and white than I see them now. The picture is now clouded by all the technicalities of the modern State. In those days Henry George was good enough for me and his "Progress and Poverty" was the basic work for many of us who studied these matters.

Sir S. McAdden: rose—

Mr. Price: I know that the hon. Member wants to help me, but I do not want to be on my feet too long.
This community must take this racketeering in land by the scruff of the neck and do something about it. For 13 years I sat on the Opposition benches doing my job quietly and not obtruding myself too much, often when I was tempted to do so. I listened to a lot of tripe being talked from both sides of the House on many occasions when I was trying to do my job and to make a contribution whenever I felt that I could do so.
During those years, I never once heard the question of betterment raised by the Conservative Party, until on the eve of the 1964 election, when they knew that they would have to give an account of their stewardship to the electors, who were horrified by the enormous height to which the price of building land had risen in the previous 10 years. I heard quite

senior members on my side of the House arguing in recent years when we were in Opposition that the price of land had risen from four to seven times in a short period. They were much below the mark. My constituency is in the broad-dialect-speaking part of Lancashire. Had I been a land speculator, a capitalist in an entrepreneur sense, and had I had the money to invest in land, I could have bought marginal land on the perimeter of Wigan not more tthan 12 or 15 years ago for £40 an acre and, because the community in that part of Lancashire is expanding, that land is now fetching £4,500 an acre, an appreciation of over 100 times in a little over 12 years.
The nation must take this matter seriously because it is the basic cause of inflation. When property values increase at the rate at which they have been increasing in recent years, this must have repercussions throughout society.

9.45 p.m.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: The hon. Gentleman said that there had not been any conspicuous advocacy of the recoupment of betterment by my hon. and right hon. Friends prior to the 1964 election. The recoupment of betterment was provided for, as I explained in my remarks, as long ago as 1932, in Section 21 of the Town and Country Planning Act of that year. It was only because the then Socialist Administration insisted on bedevilling the matter by imposing a wholly impracticable 100 per cent. development charge in 1947 that the clock was put back and a solution of this problem so long deferred.

Mr. Price: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is entitled to put that in defence of his party's neglect to deal with this problem. I will not deny him a lawyer's right to quote in an historical context. Whatever legislative machinery was available, it failed entirely under Conservative rule to arrest the spectacular rise in land values.

Mr. Graham Page: rose—

Mr. Price: I will give way later.
This whole matter was grossly neglected by those who are now criticising my hon. Friends for introducing this legislation. A respected former hon. Member of this House who will be remembered by senior hon. Members was Sir Frank Markham,


who represented a constituency in Buckingham—the area around Bletchley and Wolverton. Before leaving Parliament he made a statement to the Press and received great publicity for saying that he had been made a very rich man as the result of inheriting a very limited acreage, just a few fields. He made something like £150,000 overnight because of the accidental appreciation in the value of his land, which was required for social purposes. He was a member of the Conservative Party. He knew that what had happened in his case was morally wrong and he condemned it. He had great courage to do so and I pay tribute to him for doing so.
The Bill, with all its defects—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and I admit that it has many and I am doubtful whether it will achieve its purpose—is a valuable Measure. Hon. Gentlemen opposite know that I am not a crude nationaliser in the ordinary sense of the word. Hon. Members who have been in the House as long as I have know that I have not taken an extreme ideological line on nationalisation. I am a Socialist in philosophy and outlook in my association with the Labour Party, but I am not an ideological bigot in this matter.
Society is demanding that there should he machinery to ensure that the nation solves this problem of increased land values. If my hon. and right hon. Friends do not see that the problem is tackled, I will be the most determined, vigorous, militant and, if necessary, revolutionary hon. Member from the point of view of nationalising land, because ultimately the nation will have to take possession of the land which it needs.
One nice hon. Member opposite—the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) —spoke with a great deal of passion and some pessimism about the wretched builders and how they would be afflicted by what he described as "this iniquitous Measure", the wretched farmers who were going to lose wayleaves for putting stumps in fields, the wretched landowners and wretched this, that and the other. I began to wonder whether any happy men would be left in our community after a few more years of having the present Government in power. [Interruption.] Make no mistake; however much

hon. Gentlemen opposite dislike being in opposition, they will have to get used to it. Some of us had to get used to it because we were there for a long time. Although we did not like it, we performed our function dutifully on behalf of our constituents, put forward matters that needed to be aired and, to a certain extent, restrained the Administration of the day. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have got to get used to the idea of being in Opposition for a very long time to come. They must not be smug and shrug off the problem we are considering.
This Government mean business and while, in their attempts to deal with this and other problems, they are making a lot of mistakes — [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—they are gradually tackling these issues. Hon. Gentlemen opposite cry "Hear, hear", but they know that I have not hesitated on occasion to criticise my right hon. Friends for some of the things that have gone wrong. I shall continue to do that whenever I think it appropriate. Nevertheless. hon. Members should make no mistake; this Government are animated by a different philosophy, a different outlook and a different purpose from those who exist merely to support financial vested interests in society, of which the greatest is the landed interest.
I do not believe that we shall do anything seriously to inconvenience the small owner-occupier. That is not the purpose of this legislation. The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) made a very interesting speech to which I listened with close attention. He complained about the complexity of the Bill. Of course it is a complex Measure—far too complex for my liking. I prefer something much more direct. If hon. Members opposite will have the guts and courage to say in the presence of all of us here that they will support some Measure by which the nation will be ensured of the product of betterment of land and a ceiling will be put on the price of land, which is the first thing to be done, I shall be very grateful.
Local authorities are the concern of us all. The central Government have to provide most of local authority finance, but we are concerned here not only with local authorities but with vast amorphous financial corporations. These


measures are not directed against small owner-occupiers. It has always been the historic privilege of the Conservative Party in this House whenever a great attack has been made on property in the way that William Cobbett spoke of property, to identify the attack not as one on the great owners of property but on widows, orphans and the poorest elements in society. They identify this Bill with an attack on owner-occupiers, but it is nothing of the kind. It is an attack on speculative landowners, people who have made vast fortunes. You know it is true; let us have a sense of humour.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must not bring me into it.

Mr. Price: I am very sorry, Mr. Speaker. I should not have developed that one. I do not often take the time of the House in these days but this is something on which I hold strong views which I am trying to express in a very moderate way. The problems of great civic authorities are always before us. Hon. Members in all parts of the House, regardless of whether they are on the Opposition or Government benches, express the problems of their local authorities. What greater problem has a local authority than the development of a great city? Great cities are having to pay £150,000 to £250,000 per acre for land for social purposes. This is a complete nonsense; a scandalous situation. Something must be done about it, and quickly.
I hope that the Government will dig their heels in and resist the Lords' attempt to remove Clauses 27 to 85 from the Bill. I hope, however, that the Government will take further thought on this matter. Having said all I can in a short intervention, but a longer one than it should be, in support of the Government and against the point of view put forward by hon. Members opposite, I say that I do not think this is the right way to do it. Some Government, this Government or a successor, will have to tackle this problem. That successor may be more Leftish than this Government. Do not imagine that this Government will swing to the Right; if it fails, it will swing further Left. That is the prospect confronting us and it is what bothers me about the Economic Community of Europe.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is advancing into very wide fields and he must not do so.

Mr. Price: You have been very tolerant with me, Mr. Speaker, and the House has been very tolerant with me. I have a very bad cold tonight and I am not in good form. I promise to do better when I am in better form. For the moment I shall sit down and hope that what I have said will not go unnoticed by hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Peyton: May I be the first to express to the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J.T.Price) my very sincere hope that his cold will soon be better. I and the rest of us who have known him well for a long time have never had cause to doubt his sincerity, but sometimes we question a little his judgment. We wonder tonight whether he has perhaps even exercised that judgment and digested this Bill. In the earlier part of his speech, he made a few remarks which he subsequently contradicted. He said he did not know whether this was the right way of doing it. I am glad that he adhered to that view, because I believe that this is the way of making a mess but not of doing anything else. I agree with him that we have a very serious problem in an overcrowded island, but to suggest that this is the way of dealing with it is intolerable.
I would rather draw a veil over the speech made by, I believe, the Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner), but I wish to protest about some of the language which is here being inflicted upon us. I do so in a cause which I have held for a long time, believing that obscurity in legislation is a bad thing and is hostile to freedom. I do not need to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that it was because of a certain lack of clarity in the law that the Roman people seceded from the cities for a time until the law was clear. I wish the Minister could be left alone for a bit with his minions to clear this up. It will take him an awful long time, but perhaps some time under some tremendous dispensation of which we ourselves are not capable, the right hon. Gentleman will meet his due deserts. He should be presented with a long-playing record of these Schedules which would


play to him day and night, week after week, year after year, century after century. All that he will hear is stuff like this—

Sir S. McAdden: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Peyton: I will give way in a moment. All that he will hear is stuff like this. On page 185 there occurs—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are discussing whether Clauses 27 to 85, which finish on page 84, should remain part of the Bill. We cannot discuss the Schedules.

Mr. Peyton: I was under the impression, Mr. Speaker, that the Schedules were being taken with the Clauses. I stand corrected if I am wrong.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that the Lords wish to cut out Part III—Betterment Levy—which ends on page 84. I may be wrong, but that is my impression.

Mr. Peyton: With respect, Mr. Speaker, my impression is that their Lordships wish also to eliminate the corresponding Schedules 4 to 13 and that we are discussing that Amendment at the same time. If that is incorrect, I readily bow to your Ruling.

Mr. Speaker: I am never pedantic. I am simply taking the words as they appear on the Order Paper, and the Amendment on the Order Paper deals with Clauses 27 to 85. I do not want to restrict the hon. Member in any way that is in order.

Mr. Peyton: I think I am right in saying, Mr. Speaker, that the accompanying or annexed Schedules which correspond to these Clauses are Schedules 4 to 13, which are dealt with by Lords Amendment No. 31.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, but we are not on Lords Amendment No. 31 at the moment. The hon. Member will, I am sure, acquit me of either unfairness or pedantry.

Mr. Peyton: I am obliged to you, Mr. Speaker. Of course, I always bow to your ruling, but I was under the impression, perhaps erroneously—it may be that my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) on the Front Bench can correct me—that because the

Schedules are the inevitable accompaniment of these horrid Clauses, we were dealing with the two sets together. If however, you say that we are not, presumably we will come to Amendment No. 31 later.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I can help the hon. Member on the second point. We will discuss ultimately Amendment No. 31. Before us, however, is the question whether Clauses 27 to 85 shall be taken out of the Bill, as the Lords recommend, or whether they should remain in the Bill, as, apparently, the Government recommend.

Mr. Peyton: I perfectly understood that we were discussing whether the Clauses should be left in the Bill, and I need hardly assure you, Mr. Speaker, that for my part, if these nasty creatures of the Minister were to be omitted, I would be very gratified.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Lords Amendments to the Land Commission Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Charles R. Morris.]

Orders of the Day — LAND COMMISSION BILL

Question again proposed, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Peyton: I am sorry that I am still in doubt, Mr. Speaker, about whether I am in order in referring to the Schedules. [Interruption.] The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Social Security, sitting with his feet on the Table, says, "Don't be daft".

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must not interrupt his submission in order to make references to other hon. Members. I will deal with the point of order. The issue seems to me to be quite clear. Their Lordships have moved that certain Clauses be removed from the Bill. What we are discussing is whether those Clauses should be removed from the Bill as their Lordships have requested


or whether they should be put back. There is no mention of the Schedules.

Mr. Peyton: Further to that point of order, although I was not in fact raising a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I understood it, we were certainly discussing whether the Clauses to which you have referred should be left out of the Bill as proposed by their Lordships. With respect, however, the accompaniments of those Clauses are the Schedules which are referred to in Amendment No. 31. It would be very difficult to discuss the Clauses without the Schedules. If, however, you rule, Mr. Speaker, that we are discussing only the Clauses and not the Schedules—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not concerned about what is difficult. I am concerned with what is on the Order Paper. What we are discussing is whether certain Clauses are to stay in the Bill.

Mr. Peyton: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I do not wish to obscure the issue or to be difficult in any way. I merely wish to establish whether we can refer to Schedules 4 to 13 at the same time.

Mr. Speaker: I have indicated to the hon. Member that he must comment on the Clauses which we are discussing, more especially as he is animadverting on language. He must animadvert on the language of the Clauses, not the Schedules.

Mr. Peyton: I am much obliged, Mr. Speaker. Accepting your ruling that I must refer only to the Clauses, and bearing in mind that it is particularly to the Schedules to which I would wish to refer, I shall defer my remarks in detail until later, understanding, as I do, that Amendment No. 31 will subsequently be discussed separately from Amendment No. 20.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not prepared to give the hon. Gentleman an assurance whether Lords Amendment No. 31 will be discussed. That is not in issue. The issue is quite clear. We are discussing whether certain Clauses shall or shall not remain in the Bill. Anything outside that is out of order.

Mr. Peyton: I am very grateful to you, Sir. Unfortunately, I was not here at the precise time when the Question was proposed, so I hope that you will acquit me of any discourtesy to yourself. It was my

impression that we were discussing the Schedules as well as the Clauses. In view of your Ruling, Sir, I shall not make any detailed comment on the Schedules at this stage, but will content myself with expressing the hope that even at this late hour the Government will pause in their headlong stride to destruction and leave out this very damaging part of a very offensive and unpleasant Bill. None of the arguments which we have heard tonight from either the Minister or from the Parliamentary Secretary—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is addressing the House. He must be listened to.

Mr. Peyton: —began to convince me that the Bill had been properly thought out. It seems to us to be a mess of unintelligibility. In fact, one could perhaps give the right hon. Gentleman a palm for this in that he has taken from the Inland Revenue and, above all, from the Customs and Excise the technique of being incomprehensible and of producing—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must come to the Amendment. It is quite a clear one.

Mr. Peyton: Very well, Mr. Speaker. I am saying that a great deal of the Bill —and we are referring to a very large hunk of it now, Part III of the Bill—is incomprehensible.

Mr. Speaker: It is the "hunk" to which the hon. Gentleman must now address himself.

Mr. Peyton: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I am discussing it very directly. I am saying that Part III of the Bill, which we are now seeking to leave out, is incomprehensible. In a way it rivals and outdoes in that technique the ability of the Inland Revenue and the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, and I give to the Minister a palm of very great distinction although not very enviable.

Mr. Willey: Our proceedings were opened with the Opposition alleging that they had not had time to think. I am less enthusiastic now in disputing that than I was at that time. We have discussed Part III for a protracted period. It was discussed in the House, in Committee and in the Lords.
I want to reply to two of the points which have been made. We have the same ambivalence about the levy which we have had throughout the past few years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) said, we have fought two elections which have been affected by the scandal of land prices. We have never had a clear reply from the Opposition about what is their attitude towards this—a scandal which they themselves created and for which they have responsibility. We have had the debate again tonight, and when it comes to the issue of whether we should have a levy, although some hon. Gentlemen opposite profess themselves in favour, by and large the Opposition do not make their position clear.
Despite all that has been said over the past few weeks, the Opposition are now prepared to have a Land Commission, but they are not prepared to have a levy. This is the second issue which has faced us. We had a levy because if we have a Land Commission we avoid a two-price market.

Mr. Graham Page: The right hon. Gentleman says that the Opposition are prepared to have a Land Commission but not a levy. What we are discussing in this debate is the levy. I cannot discuss whether we have the Land Commission.

Mr. Willey: But we now have a Land Commission, and if it is the view that all purchases should be made through the Land Commission, then let us have it that way. I believe that that is impracticable, at any rate for some time.
We have the levy to avoid a two-price system, because we recognise that it would be unrealistic to expect the Commission to purchase all land for development.
The hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) asked us to accede to what the other place wants us to do. It is remarkable indeed that land speculators have greater support in the Commons among Opposition Members than they have in another place. The other place made it quite clear what it wanted us to do. It wanted us to restore Part III to the Bill. I ask the House so to do.

Mr. Allason: My right hon. and hon. Friends have mentioned the dreadful

implications of the levy. It is no good the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) saying that it will catch the big fish and that therefore we need not worry about the details. That was the whole tenor of his speech. Let us remember that 2,500,000 notifications per year will be made to the Land Commission.

Mr. Willey: indicated dissent.

Mr. Allason: In the other place it was stated that 500,000 actual levies would be applied and it was agreed that there would be one million transactions in land notified and many transactions in addition which would have to be notified to the Land Commission. The Minister should not pretend to be as innocent as his hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton in thinking that these provisions will catch the great land speculators and not affect anybody else.

Mr. J. T. Price: Can I assure the hon. Gentleman once and for all, as he does not know me very well, that I may be wrong headed sometimes but I am far from innocent. I would not like it to be put on the record that I was an innocent Member of the House of Commons. I have been sophisticated quite a long time.

Mr. Allason: I fear, however, that the hon. Gentleman has not studied the intricacies of all of the nearly 200 pages of the Bill. It is that of which I accuse him. The Minister has, but he is still trying to pretend to the House that it will catch just the great land speculators and that everybody else will go free.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) said that taxation should be just, comprehensive and easy to adminster.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Comprehensive.

Mr. Allason: Comprehensible. This levy, which in fact is taxation, is clearly the wrong way to go about taxing betterment. This is a measure which adds 135 pages to the country's tax law, and pretty incomprehensible pages at that. In addition, we have the promise that in the next Finance Bill further pages of tax law will require to be added in order to make this comprehensible, if it ever is comprehensible.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) said that no hint had been given to the House of how much the net gain would be. We know that the levy will amount to £80 million a year, but a great deal of that would have been caught by other taxes anyway and we wonder what the net amount will be. We know that there is the offset of £7 million in costs of collection, and so it appears that this will not be a very satisfactory means of taxing betterment.
It seems to be appallingly inefficient. It involves notifications by all sorts of people who are not to be charged the levy. Local authorities have to notify all their schemes although they will know in advance that they are not required to pay the levy. The same is true of statutory undertakers and of charities to the extent that charities are to be graciously left out of the levy. In addition, there will be an enormous number of exempted transactions. The Minister has given us a tremendous list of small transactions which are to be exempted, but which will all have to be notified to the Commission, so as to determine whether they ought to be exempted. That was the Minister's excuse for local authorities having to send in their notifications.
10.15 p.m.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) spoke about the taxation of the compensation that a farmer will receive for allowing the erection of electricity pylons across his land. I have had the greatest difficulty in explaining to farmers that, according to the Minister, it is right that they should be taxed on the compensation they will receive because it represents an improvement of their land. They find this difficult to comprehend.
We have heard evidence of the need for computers. There will be a computer at Newcastle-upon-Tyne. When it starts working out a nil levy, I hope that it will not do what a great many machines of nationalised industries do—ring up a bill of £999,999 19s. 11¾d. and send it out—because that will cause further disturbance to the people.
This complicated taxation measure will bring heartache and worry to 2½ million people a year. I go so far as to say that

it is the most complicated taxation measure that even this Government have ever brought forward. We have the opportunity of recording our views on the betterment levy and I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose it.

Mr. Lubbock: I advise right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House to think again about the advice just offered to them by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason). As I understand it, the Conservative Party is committed to some form of betterment levy even though it does not like the exact detail of what is in the Bill. While I agree with much of the detailed criticism made of Clauses 27 to 85, it would be wrong in principle for us to support the House of Lords in this Amendment to strike out the whole of Part III.
I remind the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead that, when the House of Lords debated this matter, it was made clear by those who spoke that this was purely a procedural device to keep them within the rules of privilege. I suggest to right hon. and hon. Members on this side that they should defer their criticisms until the detailed Amendments which, I understand, we shall deal with when this has been disposed of. Many right hon. and hon. Members, not only in the Conservative Party but in the Liberal Party, could agree with the detailed criticisms which are about to be made, but it would give a bad impression to the public if a substantial vote were cast against the levy.
The Liberal Party has always been in favour of the taxation of land values and we consider that this Bill is inadequate in many respects in that, as the right hon. Gentleman made clear on Second Reading, one of the basic principles attaching to the levy is that
… it will be charged only on development value and not on any increases in the value of land for its current use."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th May, 1966; Vol. 728, c. 617.]
We in the Liberal Party would have a better excuse for voting against Clauses 27 to 85 than the Conservative Party because the Conservatives have always maintained since well before the last election that they were in favour of a better levy as such.
I am in favour of a betterment levy only as an intermediate device until we


can come to the much more radical taxation of land values which I hope some Government in future will give to the country. While the betterment levy is better than nothing, for it will recoup to the community some portion of the increase in land values created by the community itself, it is not a satisfactory alternative to the taxation of land values.
I may be the only person in this debate to say this, but I can assure the Minister and the House that many people outside feel strongly on this matter and would perhaps recommend that Part III be deleted on those grounds. I believe and I hope to persuade my hon. Friends, and perhaps some others in the Conservative Party, that we should go a little way towards this and accept the betterment levy as an interim step towards what we should all like to see—the recouping of betterment values for the community as a whole.

Mr. William Price: I have no desire to make myself unpopular with my colleagues on this side of the House but, having sat here since Tuesday of last week and having been able to say hardly anything, when a matter arises on which I feel strongly then I shall state my case on behalf of my constituency. I did not come to this House to agree with Members of the Opposition; if I did, I would resign my seat tomorrow, but I am bound to say that I agree with one or two points raised.
It is not unreasonable to ask the Minister, as he has been consistently asked, what the net yield from this tax is likely to be. It seems to be a perfectly fair, sensible and sound question, yet the Minister sits there and does not even get to his feet. A betterment levy can have only one effect, and that is to put up prices for those who wish to buy their own property. I live in a part of the Midlands where there is an acute shortage of land and I had the unhappy experience in recent months of trying to find a plot of land—a very long job.
Eventually I found one of the Opposition's destitute farmers a Rolls and a racehorse in the yard—and I asked him if he would sell me a certain plot of land. He did not mind either way, and I thought that I would use the Land Commission as a lever, and said, "If you are

not very careful you will lose 40 per cent. of the purchase price." He said, "If you are so naїve I am surprised that you got to Parliament in the first place. The price in future will be £1,500, plus 40 per cent., take it or leave it." 
The second example that has arisen in my constituency is that of a small builder who is now negotiating for a piece of land on which he will build 20 houses. He has informed me that the price of those houses will now be £300 more than they would have been before the betterment levy. Does the Minister know of any example of a new tax bringing prices down? If we needed a lesson in this, the S.E.T. provided it without any doubt.
It is all very well for the Tories to sit there with smiles on their supine faces. Let us ask them this: what did they do? They did nothing. They created the circumstances in which racketeers flourish and now the Minister, for whom I have the greatest respect, is trying to do something about it. I just happen to think that he is wrong.
The unfortunate part about this Bill is that it is not Socialism in its reddest form, as hon. Members opposite would seem to think. It is nothing of the sort. It is a third-rate mouse. To describe it as Socialism is to grossly over-estimate its nature and its potential. We have set out to deal with the sharks as we said in our manifesto. We could not have picked a weaker or more ineffective way of doing it. I am prepared to speak for the Lords Amendments, despite their source. I never thought that I should find myself agreeing with their Lordships about anything, but it has happened. A great deal of public expense goes on the other place, and we are entitled, just occasionally, to have something constructive come down, and it is not my fault that that has now happened. In my view, this Amendment gives the Minister an opportunity to have another look at the Clauses and to substitute the real Socialist answer of public ownership of all building land.
I apologise for delaying the House. I consider that, in its present form, the Bill, and particularly the betterment levy, will have only one effect, to make house ownership even more difficult for my constituents.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: After that voice of realism from the Government benches,


the Minister ought to reply. It has been a long and arduous debate and discussion of the question has gone on a long time, but we have now had from the Government benches a point of view which in no way reflects what is embodied in the Bill. For the Minister to sit silent after that view put from behind him is an abuse of the party system. I hope that he will, even now, before the Question is put, give some sort of answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price), because his courage deserves it.

Mr. Peter Mahon: In the spirit of peace and tranquillity which many of us on this side possess, we contained ourselves in silence during the greater part of the debate earlier this evening, listening patiently to the political extravaganza of hon. and right hon. Members opposite. Only the words "deathly silence" used by the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) prompted me to say a word or two on this Amendment.
I was particularly interested in what the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) had to say. Plainly, he was inebriated by the exuberance of his own verbosity when he accused us of grinding down the poor. One would imagine that everyone who had purchased a house would lose his savings and that people were buying houses one day and selling them the next, the implication being that, because of projected legislation, the people were about to be duped. The hon. Gentleman is in a position to know better and to know that hard cases make bad law.
The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) based his objection to the Bill mainly on the number of Clauses. This cannot be accepted as a valid objection. It is only symbolic of the infamy of the situation existing prior to what we, are trying to do today. We on this side are neither willing nor ready to heed his exhortations, particularly when he tells us to take note of the advice of Oliver Cromwell. That would be the most unpardonable sin of all.
The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) spoke of the privileged position of the local authorities. If that were so—and it is very much open to doubt—it is

high time that the local authorities received more reasonable treatment. When local authorities build houses, they build for the people who need them. When private speculators build houses, they build for the people who can afford them. That is a reason why we say that if there is a balance in favour of the local authorities on this occasion it is right, proper and just that it should be so. The shortage of homes today is the greatest social evil of our time and I can speak with great authority, having given service for many years on a local authority, about the trials and tribulations that have afflicted the people who have not been able to acquire their own homes.
10.30 p.m.
The hon. Member also referred to the position of the charities and laid great stress on it. Fortunately, charities in this country are very well based. They are very well supported, and people in this country are becoming more charitable with every passing day. I do not believe that the charities seek priority and preferential treatment over the ordinary members of the community.
Surely the Opposition are not serious in suggesting alternatives which are most inimical to the progress of society? The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) raised several queries, and we heard the invariable parrot cry of, "How much?" We do not at this moment know how much, and I think that he was mostly criticising us for refusing point-blank to indulge in conjecture. He challenged my right hon. Friend the Minister to say how much, and of course the challenge was not accepted, because we do not wish to deal in conjecture.
However much it is, the project is worth trying to achieve. In the words of Goldsmith,
Laws grind the poor, and rich men rule the law.
Because of the speculative nature of the acquirement of land, and all the avarice that has been indulged in acquiring it, people have suffered from time immemorial. Many people have been robbed of the greatest possession an ordinary person can have. People can have a job, but if they have not a home they are the outcasts of society.
Because of the necessity for the legislation to acquire the maximum number of homes for the maximum number of people, we refuse to accept the Lords Amendments.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—

The House divided:Ayes 178, Noes 100.

Division No. 255.]
AYES
[10.35 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Moyle, Roland


Alldritt, Walter
Gourlay, Harry
Neal, Harold


Allen, Scholefield
Gregory, Arnold
Newens, Stan


Anderson, Donald
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Norwood, Christopher


Archer, Peter
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Ogden, Eric


Armstrong, Ernest
Harper, Joseph
O'Malley, Brian


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Orme, Stanley


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Haseldine, Norman
Oswald, Thomas


Bence, Cyril
Hazell, Bert
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Bessell, Peter
Henig, Stanley
Pardoe, John


Binns, John
Hooley, Frank
Pavitt, Laurence


Bishop, E. S.
Horner, John
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Blackburn, F.
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Booth, Albert
Howie, W.
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Brooks, Edwin
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Probert, Arthur


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hunter, Adam
Redhead, Edward


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon, Tyne, W.)
Hynd, John
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Cant, R. B.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St. P'cras, S.)
Rose, Paul


Carmichael, Neil
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Coe, Denis
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Coleman, Donald
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Concannon, J. D.
Kelley, Richard
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Crawshaw, Richard
Kenyon, Clifford
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Lawson, George
Skeffington, Arthur


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Leadbitter, Ted
Small, William


Dalyell, Tam
Ledger, Ron
Spriggs, Leslie


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Lee, John (Reading)
Swingler, Stephen


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Taverne, Dick


Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Thornton, Ernest


Delargy, Hugh
Lomas, Kenneth
Tinn, James


Dewar, Donald
Loughlin, Charles
Urwin, T. W.


Dickens, James
Lubbock, Eric
Varley, Eric G.


Dobson, Ray
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Doig, Peter
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Driberg, Tom
McBride, Neil
Watkins, David (Consett)


Dunn, James A.
McCann, John
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
MacColl, James
Wellbeloved, James


Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
Macdonald, A. H.
Whitaker, Ben


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McGuire, Michael
Whitlock, William


Ellis, John
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Wilkins, W. A.


Ennals, David
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Mackintosh, John P.
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Fernyhough, E.
Maclennan, Robert
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Forrester, John
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Woof, Robert


Fowler, Gerry
Mapp, Charles
Yates, Victor


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Marquand, David
Zilliacus, K.


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
Mendelson, J. J.



Freeson, Reginald
Millan, Bruce
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gardner, Tony
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Mr. Charles Grey and Mr. Charles R. Morris.


Garrett, W. E.
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)



Ginsburg, David
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Eden, Sir John


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Elliott, R. W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)


Baker, W. H. K.
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Eyre, Reginald


Batsford, Brian
Carlisle, Mark
Farr, John


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Clegg, Walter
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Biffen, John
Cooke, Robert
Fortescue, Tim


Body, Richard
Currie, G. B. H.
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Dalkeith, Earl of
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)




Goodhart, Philip
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Goodhew, Victor
Maddan, Martin
Russell, Sir Ronald


Grant, Anthony
Maude, Angus
Sharples, Richard


Grant-Ferris, R.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Grieve, Percy
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Sinclair, Sir George


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Smith, John


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Monro, Hector
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Tilney, John


Hastings, Stephen
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Murton, Oscar
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Heseltine, Michael
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Hill, J. E. B.
Onslow, Cranley
Vickers, Dame Joan


Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Holland, Philip
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Weatherill, Bernard


Hornby, Richard
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Iremonger, T. L.
Percival, Ian
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Peyton, John
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Pink, R. Bonner
Worsley, Marcus


Jopling, Michael
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch



Kimball, Marcus
Prior, J. M. L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Pym, Francis
Mr. Jasper More and Mr. Timothy Kitson.


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James



Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

Clause 27.—(GENERAL PROVISIONS AS TO BETTERMENT LEVY.)

Mr. Farr: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the words so restored to the Bill, in page 31, line 33, to leave out 'first appointed day' and to insert 1st January 1968'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): With this Amendment we can take all the related Amendments in page 32.

Mr. Farr: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I put forward these Amendments on two grounds. The first and most important is the human angle. Many little people will be hurt considerably unless the appointed day is postponed from 6th April this year to 1st January, 1968. They will be asked to pay sums out of their own pockets which it is quite impossible for them to find.
In case the right hon. Gentleman thinks that this is a figment of my imagination, I can give him a constituency case, about which I have had the opportunity of consulting his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. A constituent of mine saved up and managed to buy a single building plot half an acre in extent with planning permission for a house. The deal was completed in April of last year. This man and his wife, by dint of saving, managed to get together the purchase price and, with the aid of a bank loan, provided £2,100 to buy the land. Their intention was to hold on to this plot for a few years until they had had a chance to save some more money to build their own house on this plot, with the aid of a mortgage, and spend the last years of their lives in retirement in the Leicestershire countryside.
If the first appointed day is not postponed to 1st January, 1968, or later these people and countless others in a similar position will be faced with the necessity to find another £800 in development levy, unless they start to build by 6th April of this year. I wrote to the Minister and to my constituents. I told my constituents that their best bet was to get cracking with the foundations of the house as soon as possible or certainly before the appointed day, and their tragic answer was that it was impossible for them to get the plans for their house prepared and

passed by an architect in the few weeks which remain before 6th April. That is the human angle to the Amendment.
10.45 p.m.
My second reason is an appeal to the Minister to show some common sense in the face of the growing national concern as to how the Commission will operate. Noble Lords in another place and hon. Members of this House, on both sides, have said that people in the country do not understand the provisions of the Bill. All that is required of the Minister is a little common sense and understanding. I do not think that we are asking too much.
He showed a good deal of common sense and appreciation not long before Christmas in response to an approach by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre), who brought him cogent evidence of a hundred professional experts in Birmingham who were baffled by the Bill and could not understand it. Faced with this dramatic evidence, the Minister had the good sense to realise that more time must be given to the accountants, valuers, surveyors and other experts so that they might try to understand it, and he postponed the first appointed day by five weeks. I am confident that my plea tonight will not fall on stony ground. He has already once shown the good sense for which I am asking and I am sure that he will see the sense of the argument and postpone the appointed day for a further period. The speech in another place of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has been mentioned, but I make no apology for pointing out that he was the architect of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, and that he is a friend of the Minister, and that in the debate on the Bill in another place, on 28th November, 1966, he asked Members of another place
Would any material damage be done by deferring the first appointed day.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is not entitled to quote speeches made in another place.

Mr. Farr: I am obliged for your correction, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was about to quote another two sentences but in view of your Ruling I will not do so.


However, his remarks were reported in the newspapers the following day. They reported Lord Silkin as having asked whether any material change would come about as a result of deferring the first appointed day. It was stated that he had suggested "No"—that there would not. Lord Silkin had said, they reported:
Those people who fear what may come after the first appointed day have already taken such steps as they think right, and those are not the people I am concerned about.
He went on, so it was reported in the Press, to say that he was concerned—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think it is in order for the hon. Member to quote, either directly or indirectly, what the noble Lord said in another place.

Mr. Farr: I respect your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The effect of what Lord Silkin said in another place, as reported in the Press, can quite definitely be taken to indicate that he felt that the first appointed day should be postponed to either 1st January, 1968, or 1st October, 1967. He then gave the reasons why he thought the first appointed day should be postponed, but I will not pursue his remarks further.
Does not the Minister believe that it is in the country's and his own interest that it should be postponed? There is a risk that he will make an ass of himself in the eyes of the nation and Parliament if he does not do so, since how does he know that the first appointed day of 6th April, 1967, is the right one? After all, can he be sure that the Bill will have received the Royal Assent by that date? If he cannot be certain, then any appointed day which he fixes now may have no valid meaning.
The Amendments made in another place have received universal acclaim. That being so, I have asked these questions because their Lordships may decline to withdraw their Amendments, in which case, since they have the country behind them in this matter, they may decide to hold up this legislation until a date well beyond 6th April of this year.
To illustrate the type of support being voiced in the country for the Amendments made in another place, The Times wrote yesterday:
The opposition in the Lords, ably and moderately guided by Lord Brooke of Cumnor, have made eight significant amendments to

the Bill. Three have been accepted by the Government. On the merits of the others the Commons must now decide. With most of the points the weight of argument is decisively on the side of amendment. None of them is a wrecking amendment, none of them attacks the principles of the measure. The Government can afford to give ground and in the interests of sound legislation they should do so.
This opinion is similar to opinion expressed elsewhere in the country. Their Lordships may decide to dig their heels in. They may realise that the country is behind them in their very sensible Amendments. If so, any date which the right hon. Gentleman may fix as the appointed day will be absolutely meaningless. I ask him carefully to bear in mind these words and, for this and other cogent reasons which he will get from this side of the House, to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Skeffington: I must first point out what the consequences of accepting this Amendment would be, apart from the more limited and parochial ones to which the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) referred. The removal from this Clause of the first appointed day would not affect the other Parts of the Bill. The Minister would be able to announce the appointed day for Part II, but there would be a different day for the betterment levy. This would make nonsense of the whole proceedings. That may have been the reason for the Amendment, but it was not moved in those terms. The effect would be to make the whole apparatus of the Bill unworkable.
It would be wrong to speculate about what would happen if another place dug their heels in. I do not know what kind of incitement the hon. Member was suggesting to another place. The appointed day should be as soon as possible after the Bill becomes law. There are many pressing reasons for getting on with the fixing of the first appointed day. Whenever one fixed it, there would be cases which would be disadvantaged. On the other hand, if we altered it that would bring protests from others who would then be disadvantaged. The Government have to use the best balance they can in relation to these matters.
During the interim period between publication of the White Paper and the first appointed day, dispositions cannot be used to create a Schedule 5 base value. This has certain repercussions and we


wish to remove uncertainty as quickly as possible. The Commission has an enormous task in assembling parcels of land to meet the needs of the country. That is not assisted by delay after delay.
Without more information I would not accept the financial implications of the specific case mentioned by the hon. Member, but I think that the cases he had in mind would escape the levy. One has to balance the advantages of getting on with the major objectives. The view of the Government is that the first appointed day should be as soon after Royal Assent as possible. I could not advise the House to accept this Amendment and those associated with it.

Mr. Graham Page: The Parliamentary Secretary must know that the staff cannot be obtained in a couple of months. A staff of 2,000 has to be collected. They have not yet been recruited and nothing is known about the district valuers. Secondly, it is quite impossible to get regulations made in time if the Minister is to have the consultations he should have with those concerned. Thirdly, the Bill will not work unless he has the cooperation of the professions who will have to put it into practice every day. He will not get that co-operation because they do not understand the Measure and have not time to learn about it between now and 6th April.
It is absolutely essential that this matter should be delayed. Such delay would not prevent the Commission assembling the land. If the operative day under Part III is postponed for nine months, it may be expected to come into operation with some reasonable chance of success. If, however, it is to come into operation on 6th April, I use the word which I have used so many times in connection with the Bill: there will be chaos.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Peter Bessell: It is important that the Minister should give careful consideration to the Amendments. I was sorry that he brushed them aside in the way that was done a few moments ago. There is no doubt that, whatever the merits or otherwise of the Bill may he, it is an extremely complicated Measure. It is one which is not readily understood even by people who have wide experience in matters of law, valuers and people who have been associated with the

sale and purchase of land throughout their lives.
There can be no doubt of the force of the argument which the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has just put to the House. I fail to see how it is possible for the Minister to assume that he can gather together an adequate staff to deal with all the complicated—

Mr. Skeffington: In answer to a Parliamentary Question only on Monday, I said that something like 1,800 people will be available in post by the first appointed day, 6th April, so that we anticipate no difficulty in getting on with the work on that score. I have made this clear and I am glad to get it on the record again.

Mr. Bessell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I leave that argument, because I accept that he has satisfied himself that there will be adequate staff to deal with this matter from his side of the fence.
Can the hon. Gentleman, however, satisfy the House that there will be an adequate number of valuers available to advise intending purchasers and vendors of land which may be sold or which may change hands by one means or another during the coming 12 months? I do not believe this to be the case. Every letter which I have received, not only from constituents, not only from intending purchasers, but also from many associations and respected bodies, indicates clearly that they believe that a Bill which by its very nature is as complicated and as difficult as this one will require considerable time to be assimilated and that it will be a considerable time before much of it is understood.
I recognise that these Amendments do not directly affect the question of the Land Commission. The organisation can go ahead with the planning and acquisition of land. The fact remains, however, that if the first appointed day is to be 6th April great anxiety will be caused to many people who are not in any sense land speculators—people who are buying houses in the way indicated by the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) in moving the Amendment. In addition, much needless work will be caused to people who are serious land developers, not only in the private sector, but in the public sector also. I think here of local authorities.
If the Parliamentary Secretary argues that there would be a serious loss of revenue, surely there is no reason why the Capital Gains Tax should not continue in effect by means of Finance Bill proposals by the Chancellor of the Exchequer so that it could remain in effect until the first appointed day if the Amendment, which has been proposed

very reasonably and which, I am sure, has much common sense in it to commend itself to the country, were accepted by the Government.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the words so restored to the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 163, Noes 102.

Division No. 256.]
AYES
[11.5 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Gourlay, Harry
Moyle, Roland


Alldritt, Walter
Gregory, Arnold
Neal, Harold


Allen, Scholefield
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Newens, Stan


Anderson, Donald
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Norwood, Christopher


Archer, Peter
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Ogden, Eric


Armstrong, Ernest
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
O'Malley, Brian


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Haseldine, Norman
Orme, Stanley


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Hazell, Bert
Oswald, Thomas


Bence, Cyril
Henig, Stanley
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Binns, John
Hooley, Frank
Pavitt, Laurence


Bishop, E. S.
Horner, John
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Blackburn, F.
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Booth, Albert
Howie, W.
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Brooks, Edwin
Hunter, Adam
Price, William (Rugby)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hynd, John
Probert, Arthur


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St. P'cras, S.)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Cant, R. B.
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rose, Paul


Carmichael, Neil
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Coe, Denis
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Coleman, Donald
Kelley, Richard
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Concannon, J. D.
Kenyon, Clifford
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Crawshaw, Richard
Lawson, George
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Leadbitter, Ted
Skeffington, Arthur


Dalyell, Tam
Ledger, Ron
Spriggs, Leslie


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Lee, John (Reading)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Swingler, Stephen


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Taverne, Dick


Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Delargy, Hugh
Lomas, Kenneth
Thornton, Ernest


Dewar, Donald
Loughlin, Charles
Tinn, James


Dickens, James
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Urwin, T. W.


Dobson, Ray
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Varley, Eric G.


Doig, Peter
McBride, Neil
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Driberg, Tom
McCann, John
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Dunn, James A.
MacColl, James
Watkins, David (Consett)


Dunnett, Jack
Macdonald, A. H.
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
McGuire, Michael
Wellbeloved, James


Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Whitaker, Ben


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Mackintosh, John P.
Whitlock, William


Ellis, John
Maclennan, Robert
Wilkins, W. A.


Ennals, David
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Fernyhough, E.
McNamara, J. Kevin
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mapp, Charles
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Marquand, David
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Forrester, John
Mendelson, J. J.
Woof, Robert


Fowler, Gerry
Millan, Bruce
Yates, Victor


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Zilliacus, K.


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)



Gardner, Tony
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Garrett, W. E.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Mr. Joseph Harper and Mr. Ioan L. Evans.


Ginsburg, David






NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Body, Richard
Clegg, Walter


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Cooke, Robert


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Currie, G. B. H.


Baker, W. H. K.
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Dalkeith, Earl of


Batsford, Brian
Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col. Sir Walter
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Eden, Sir John


Bessell, Peter
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Biffen, John
Carlisle, Mark
Elliott, R. W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)




Eyre, Reginald
Jopling, Michael
Prior, J. M. L.


Farr, John
Kimball, Marcus
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Fortescue, Tim
Kitson, Timothy
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Giles, Rear Adm. Morgan
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Russell, Sir Ronald


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Lubbock, Eric
Sharples, Richard


Goodhart, Philip
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Goodhew, Victor
Maddan, Martin
Sinclair, Sir George


Grant, Anthony
Maude, Angus
Smith, John


Grant-Ferris, R.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Grieve, Percy
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Tilney, John


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Monro, Hector
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
More, Jasper
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Hastings, Stephen
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Vickers, Dame Joan


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Murton, Oscar
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Heseltine, Michael
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Weatherill, Bernard


Hill, J. E. B.
Onslow, Cranley
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Holland, Philip
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Hornby, Richard
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pardoe, John
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Iremonger, T. L.
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Worsley, Marcus


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Percival, Ian
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Pink, R. Bonner
Mr. Francis Pym and Mr. David Mitchell.


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Mr. Clegg: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the words so restored to the Bill, in page 32, line 25, at the end to insert:
(4) No levy shall be chargeable where—

(a) in Cases A, B and E the amount of the consideration for the relevant disposition, in Case C the market value of the relevant interest, or in Case D the amount of the compensation, does not exceed £4,000; and
(b) in Cases A, B and E the grantor, in Case C the owner of the relevant interest, or in Case D the person to whom the right to compensation accrues is not a body corporate; and
(c) the relevant land or relevant interest, as the case may be, is the principal or only land or interest in land to which such person is entitled.
I can assure the Minister that I am trying to be as helpful to him as was his hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price). If the right hon. Gentleman does not accept this Amendment, he will be condemning the Land Commission to a rather nasty death, because it is only by exempting the small transactions that the Commission will be able to work. In this I am persuaded by the Lord Chancellor who in the debate in another place said:
The Government have considerable sympathy with the views which have been expressed on this Amendment. Nobody really wants the Land Commission to mess about dealing with a large number of very small matters, taking up a lot of administrative work and time and not producing, perhaps, anything which, in the end, is really worthwhile.
Saying that the Government did have some sympathy with this Amendment

and that the only reason they were unable to accept it was the possibility of evasion or fragmentation, the noble Lord went on:
If noble Lords opposite could suggest a clause which was watertight I have no doubt that we should be happy to consider it"— [OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 5th December, 1966; Vol. 278, c. 989–90.]
In his view, the Amendment as drafted was not sufficient.
I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that, if this Amendment is accepted and he uses his power to make regulations for the Land Commission and then adopts a form of affidavit, somewhat on the lines of the Inland Revenue affidavit, which people would have to swear before they actually benefited by a concession, this would be adequate protection.
11.15 p.m.
Every day of the week people are swearing affidavits as to the extent of the assets they possess, which is what this Clause would call them to do. Therefore, there is nothing unusual or remarkable in this procedure. Indeed, in every conveyance under £6,000 certificates are provided which are signed by the parties to the transaction enabling them to avoid stamp duty or to pay a lower rate. This has been going on for many years and has never been abused, so perhaps that is another way in which this system could be made to work.
The same argument about fragmentation could equally be levelled at stamp duty and yet we know that the amount of


evasion by this means is minimal, because people know that there are severe penalties for attempting to evade stamp duty by putting in a wrong certificate for a conveyance and so on, as, indeed, is the case with the other method of using affidavits.
The consequences of swearing incorrectly for Inland Revenue affidavits are severe and this makes the system work. What is the difference in reality between what we are asking the Government to do here—to exempt transactions under £4,000—and exempting estates under £5,000 from estate duty? The right hon. Gentleman may say that this would be equally open to abuse but, in the case I have mentioned, the revenue position is protected by affidavit.
I urge the right hon. Gentleman to give thought once more to whether he cannot accept the Amendment together with the other safeguards I have suggested. If he did so, he would make the job of the Land Commission tolerable. The servants of the Commission will have to deal with such things as wayleaves, small leases of seven years on small rentals and many household transactions of owner-occupied houses under £4,000 if the Amendment is not accepted. The Amendment would remove an immense burden of work from the shoulders of the 1,800 and eventually 2,000 men who will have to deal with the biggest avalanche of paper any Department has had to deal with in the history of government. Although in a way I regret it, we might be saving the Land Commission if we persuade the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Willey: As has been said, we are not unsympathetic to this idea. In fact, we already have in the Bill two de minims provisions which relate to the problem raised. First, the levy will be taken only when the amount of the development value is more than one-tenth of the current use value, which is a very important provision in this context.
We have also the provision defining material development, so that we have very much in mind the point that has been raised. We look upon this proposal sympathetically. The hon. Gentleman has dealt with the point very much as he dealt with it in Standing Committee, when he made a similar proposal

by way of a new Clause. The disincentive to accepting this is that we are convinced that it would provide means for widespread evasion by allowing transactions to be translated into a series of small transactions.

Mr. Eyre: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that there is wholesale evasion of stamp duty obligations by use of the certificate for value system, to which there is no objection? Surely that could apply in these circumstances?

Mr. Willey: I will come to this. It is how much wider one goes. There is much more involved here than is involved with stamp duty. As the hon. Gentleman said with regard to his new Clause, it was said in the Lords that this may not be absolutely watertight. I am convinced that this is an understatement. We have to recognise the position that we are dealing here with some people who are very anxious not to pay the levy and who will be very well advised upon how to avoid it. We are not satisfied, and I am certain that hon. Gentlemen opposite would not be absolutely satisfied, that this would not be open to widespread evasion by nominees and fragmentation.
This is the real reason we feel unable to accept the Amendment and I am not very impressed by the argument about administrative convenience. People talk about the imposition on the citizen but there is no imposition whatever. All that a person does is to fill in the particulars for the stamp duty and the rest of the work is done by the Land Commission. If I am being asked to advise about the administrative convenience of the Land Commission, I would say that this would not help it, because if one makes any such provision, one has to provide some machinery for inquiry to satisfy oneself that there is no evasion. This is not attractive administratively, but one is concerned about imposing upon people amounts of levy which would not be very substantial.
I am not satisfied that this provision, like the earlier proposal of the hon. Gentleman or any similar provision, would not be open to evasion. There is another difficulty, which was raised in another place. If one makes an exception such as this, with the original proposal of £5,000, and this is £4,000, as


the Opposition conceded in another place, this would mean considering the question of escalation—there would be a break at the full levy and one would have to consider, if one was considering a margin of £4,000, an escalation from no levy to full levy. This would again complicate matters and make the administration much more difficult. I still rely in recommending the House to resist this Amendment upon that fact that we have not been able to see any satisfactory, secure and safe way of avoiding evasion.

Mr. Rossi: I confess that I find the Minister's explanation for the rejection of this Amendment most unsatisfactory. He has argued along the lines of administrative inconvenience about something which will affect thousands of people. I regard this Amendment as the touchstone of the Government's sincerity about this Measure. We have been told by the Minister, and in the White Paper before him, that the intention of the Government about the levy is to catch the land specu-

lator. We have had several impassioned speeches from the benches opposite, decrying the efforts made on this side of the House to protect the small, ordinary man and woman. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) criticised us for doing that, and re-emphasised that this Measure was to catch the land sharks.

Let us consider how sincere the hon. Member and his hon. Friends are about that. Here is an Amendment which would cut out the little man, which would cut out the man with his own house, the man with a piece of property worth less than £4,000. Does anyone suggest that land speculators or land sharks fall into that class? We shall see in the Lobbies what the attitude of the Labour Party is to the ordinary men and women and small property owners of this country.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the words so restored to the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 100, Noes 156.

Division No. 257.]
AYES
[11.27 p.m.


Alison Michael (Barkston Ash)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Pardoe, John


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Percival, Ian


Baker, W. H. K.
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Pink, R. Bonner


Batsford, Brian
Hastings, Stephen
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Heseltine, Michael
Prior, J. M. L.


Bessell, Peter
Hill, J. E. B.
Pym, Francis


Biffen, John
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Body, Richard
Holland, Philip
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Boyd, Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hornby, Richard
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Russell, Sir Ronald


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Iremonger, T. L.
Sharples, Richard


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Sinclair, Sir George


Buchanan -Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Smith, John


Carlisle, Mark
Jopling, Michael
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Clegg, Walter
Kimball, Marcus
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Cooke, Robert
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Tilney, John


Currie, G. B. H.
Kitson, Timothy
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Knight, Mrs. Jill
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Lubbock, Eric
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Eden, Sir John
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maddan, Martin
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Elliott, R. W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Maude, Angus
Weatherill, Bernard


Eyre, Reginald
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Parr, John
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Fortescue, Tim
More, Jasper
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Worsley, Marcus


Goodhart, Philip
Murton, Oscar



Goodhew, Victor
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grant, Anthony
Onslow, Cranley
Mr. David Mitchell and Mr. Hector Monro.


Grant-Ferris, R.
Osborn, John (Hallam)



Grieve, Percy
Page, Graham (Crosby)





NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.


Alldritt, Walter
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Brooks, Edwin


Allen, Scholefield
Bence, Cyril
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.


Anderson, Donald
Binns, John
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)


Archer, Peter
Blackburn, F.
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)


Armstrong, Ernest
Booth, Albert
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)




Cant, R. B.
Horner, John
O'Malley, Brian


Carmichael, Neil
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Orme, Stanley


Coe, Denis
Howie, W.
Oswald, Thomas


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Concannon, J. D.
Hunter, Adam
Pavitt, Laurence


Crawshaw, Richard
Hynd, John
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Dalyell, Tam
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St. P'cras, S.)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Price, William (Rugby)


Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Probert, Arthur


Delargy, Hugh
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Dewar, Donald
Kelley, Richard
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Dickens, James
Kenyon, Clifford
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Dobson, Ray
Lawson, George
Rose, Paul


Doig, Peter
Leadbitter, Ted
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Driberg, Tom
Ledger, Ron
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Dunn, James A.
Lee, John (Reading)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Dunnett, Jack
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Edwards, Rt. Hn, Ness (Caerphilly)
Lomas, Kenneth
Skeffington, Arthur


Edward, William (Merioneth)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Steele, Thomas (Dumbartonshire, W.)


Ellis, John
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Taverne, Dick


Ennals, David
McBride, Neil
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Fernyhough, E,
McCann, John
Thornton, Ernest


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
MacColl, James
Tinn, James


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Macdonald, A. H.
Urwin, T. W.


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McGuire, Michael
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Forrester, John
Mackintosh, John P.
Watkins, David (Consett)


Fowler, Gerry
Maclennan, Robert
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Wellbeloved, James


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Whitaker, Ben


Gardner, Tony
MacPherson, Malcolm
Whitlock, William


Garrett, W. E.
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Ginsburg, David
Mapp, Charles
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Gourlay, Harry
Marquand, David
Williams Alan (Swansea, W.)


Gregory, Arnold
Mendelson, J. J.
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Millan, Bruce
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Harper, Joseph
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Woof, Robert


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Yates, Victor


Haseldine, Norman
Neal, Harold
Zilliacus, K.


Hazell, Bert
Newens, Stan



Henig, Stanley
Norwood, Christopher
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hooley, Frank
Ogden, Eric
Mr. Edward Bishop and Mr. Ioan L. Evans.

Clause 29.—(LEVY IN CASE A.)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the words so restored to the Bill, in page 33, line 12, at the end to insert:
Provided that no levy shall be chargeable in respect of a disposition to which this section applies where the disposition is in respect of a dwelling-house or part of a dwelling-house which is the owner's only or main residence or land which he has for his own occupation and enjoyment with that residence as its garden or grounds up to an area (inclusive of the site of the dwelling-house) of one acre or such larger area as the Commission may in any particular case determine, on being satisfied that, regard being had to the size and character of the dwelling-house, the larger area is required for the reasonable enjoyment of it (or of the part in question) as a residence.
The purpose of this Amendment is to exempt from the payment of the levy the disposition of an owner-occupied house. As the Bill stands, with the levy provisions restored, on the sale or leasing for more than seven years of an owner-occupied house the question of the levy

will arise. It is far from clear how effective the charge of the levy would be or what its scope would be.
Throughout our proceedings the Minister has sought to play this down. He will recall that on the Bill in a previous Parliament he took the line that this would not apply to owner-occupied houses at all. He has somewhat modified that view and, indeed, he may recall that I asked him a Question earlier this week as to the amount of revenue that he expected to get from the levy falling on the disposition of owner-occupied houses. He referred me to an answer which he gave on the same day to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre), which I should like to quote. He said:
It is not possible to estimate this. In the great majority of cases no liability for levy will arise on transactions related to owner-occupied houses, because no development value will be realised.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd January, 1967; Vol. 739, c. 167]


I am not sure that I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. But, taking the matter on his own statement in reply to that Question—and it is a line on which he has been quite consistent throughout these debates—two things follow. First of all, the cost of this proposal would be very small. Secondly, none the less the levy would fall on some owner-occupied houses.
We are here dealing with a case which which I hope will appeal to hon. Members on both sides of the House. We are not dealing with land sharks, whatever kind of mammal or reptile those creatures may be. We are certainly not dealing with speculators. We are dealing specifically with the houses that people live in, and the Amendment is carefully—perhaps rather restrictively—drafted to be limited to that.
Again we are not creating any possibility of evasion. Not the most mobile of land sharks—mobile by land or by sea—can possibly have a large number of main residences. We have tied this up firmly so that it deals with the category of person with whom we are really concerned. Be the number rather large or rather small, the same principle applies, and the more the right hon. Gentleman is right and I am wrong the less my proposition will cost him.
On this question of the scope, of how many people and how much money is affected, I should like to ask him to comment on the observations which were made on an earlier Amendment by one of his hon. Friends. He said with immense assurance that between 85 per cent. and 90 per cent. of owner-occupiers would not be affected. Does he accept those figures? Are they official? Was the right hon. Gentleman leading from dummy, if I may so put it, having declined to give the figures himself, handing them to his hon. Friend? Or did his hon. Friend invent them? Those of us who have been asking for the figures for the best part of two years were surprised to hear them come from a position in close physical proximity to him, and come with apparent authority and great assurance. Are they right or wrong? Be they right, or be they wrong, the issue remains: is it the wish of the House to impose the levy on the disposal of an owner-occupied house and garden? That is the

practical question the House will have to decide.
It has been the policy of all Governments to encourage, or at least say that they were encouraging, owner-occupation. I must pay tribute to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who gave real attention to the position of the owner-occupier when he imposed his Capital Gains Tax. He exempted the owner-occupied house from Capital Gains Tax. If the Chancellor, aided by his genial friends in the Inland Revenue, were prepared to take a generous line on a matter of straight taxation of that sort, it is a little curious that the Minister should be harder: that when it comes to taxation, the owner-occupier should find himself better treated by the Chancellor, with all the vast economic and financial problems that fall on him, than by the right hon. Gentleman, who, on his own showing, would lose very little money by making the concession for which we ask.
There are 8 million owner-occupiers in this country. Almost all have acquired their homes, or are acquiring them, as a result of real and considerable sacrifice, which at the moment is sharper than ever because the party opposite has bilked on its 1964 pledge to reduce mortgage interest rates.
All parties have said that they believed in owner-occupation. There is something immensely valuable socially in the person who owns his own house and is not dependent on the wishes or whims of any landlord, however kindly, or any local authority, however benevolent, and can close his own front door on himself and his family. I believe that that is the basis of a stable society—the family's home owned by the householder, with the independence and sense of security that that gives.
One of the things of which I am proudest from all the years of Conservative Government is that the number of owner-occupied houses doubled during that period. It doubled because my right hon. Friends did not pay only lip-service to the cause of owner-occupation, as hon. Members opposite do, but helped it with the magnificent success to which I have just referred. The right hon. Gentleman knows now that the trend towards owner-occupation is faltering, that building for


owners is falling off, and much of the troubles of the building industry are directly related to that.
I hope that he does not want to give that an additional push downwards, because he must realise that one of the things that encourage people to make the great sacrifice involved in making the payments to obtain a house of their own is that they create a capital asset which can go to their family or be sold to endow their family when they die or retire. That is very valuable, yet the right hon. Gentleman will nibble a considerable lump off at any rate some of those capital assets if he persists in his attitude.
What social, economic, moral or financial good does he think he is doing by that? He told us again and again, in that terrible speech which he made moving the Second Reading of the first Bill, about how he was anxious to help people to house themselves economically. This is a very curious way of doing it, when they have made the effort to house themselves, to impose a swingeing tax on the assets that they have created. It shows in a curious light the sincerity of the right hon. Gentleman's desire to help people to house themselves.
11.45 p.m.
He cannot deny that, if he does not accept the Amendment, every one of those 8 million people, when he comes to sell his house or to grant a long lease on it, will have to report his intention to the Commission and then wait for any period up to six years during which the Commission can make up its imperial mind whether, in its view, a levy is payable and, if so, how much it shall be.
Even in the case of those who do not, in the event, have to pay—and no one knows at this stage how many will have to pay—they will have the anxiety and difficulty of concluding a bargain, not knowing what to ask for a house if they do not know how much levy they will have to pay. It must be remembered that we are talking, in the majority of cases, of quite small people with small properties and few assets, apart from their houses. They will have the worry and anxiety of not knowing whether this charge will hang over their heads.
The right hon. Gentleman could free them from that if he would accept the

Amendment. I do not know why the Government have not accepted it at earlier stages. They purport to support home ownership. On the right hon. Gentleman's own argument, there is very little money involved, and there is no question of evasion. The only possible explanation is one which I hesitate to attribute to the right hon. Gentleman, and that is his sheer obstinacy, not having excluded them from the beginning. Having tried to pooh-pooh this as being of no importance, he does not like the loss of face involved in admitting that he has been wrong about this, and putting the matter right, as he has the opportunity to do now. I beg him to rise above that, and do it in the interests of a very large section of our community.
In my constituency, there are large numbers of people with houses and small bits of garden in an area of rising values. As I read the Bill, they will all find themselves caught with development value if they sell their houses. This is a matter of great anxiety to them, and the right hon. Gentleman could free them from it tonight if he would accept the Amendment.
If that appeal fails, let him reflect on the effect on the fortunes of his party of antagonising 8 million people.

Mr. Willey: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will help me in allaying anxiety, if that is his main concern, and perhaps some of his right hon. and hon. Friends will do the same, because it is something which I have said repeatedly, and it is something which repeatedly has not been revealed in the Press. The figure of 85 to 90 per cent. is the figure of all land transactions which will not attract the levy. That is a statement which I have made repeatedly. It is one which, repeatedly, has been concealed.
If we take all land transactions over a year, we estimate, on the best advice that we have, that 85 to 90 per cent. will not attract the levy.
As I have told the right hon. Gentleman, I have not the figures relating to owner-occupation. They are difficult figures to get. However, one can assume that the figures relating to owner-occupation will be higher still.

Mr. Eyre: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that the headquarters of the Land Commission will be loaded up with over


1½million forms a year relating to transactions which will have to be examined by valuers, out of which there will be no yield by way of the levy?

Mr. Willey: Because of the figures that I have just given and the figures which have been before hon. Members for a long time, it is clear that the machinery on which we are relying—the machinery of the return for stamp duty purposes—imposes no extra burden. We have had all this nonsense about the complexities for the owner-occupier. There is no extra burden. All they have to do—as they are obliged to do now and have been for a considerable time—is to fill in a stamp duty form. This is not a difficult administrative problem.
We are concerned only with development value. What do we mean when we talk about development value in connection with an owner-occupied house? It is the case of the house being pulled down for redevelopment. We are not talking about the security of the owner-occupier. We are talking about the case in which the land has been redeveloped and a block of flats or a housing estate has been built in place of the house that was formerly there. The hon. Member expresses concern for the owner-occupier; so do we. This Government—not that of the hon. Member—without hesitation exempted the owner-occupier from the Capital Gains Tax.
We shall shortly be discussing leasehold enfranchisement. Where does the right hon. Gentleman stand on that issue, and the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page)? That affects the security of the owner-occupier.
We are concerned here with the question of development value arising in the circustances I have given. Of course we have the de minimis provision. Here again the fraction of one-tenth applies, and no question of development value arises unless it is more than one-tenth over and above the present value of the house. In spite of what the right hon. Gentleman will persist in saying, this is not a difficult administrative matter for the Commission.
Now let us face the problems that arise in dealing with development. What has concerned me throughout our discussions on the Bill has been the question of equity in the operation of the levy—

equity between landowners, householders and owner-occupiers. It can happen that an owner-occupier makes an enormous windfall profit, just as a speculator can. We now have a definition. A house may be enclosed on an acre (or more) but cannot be developed because there is no access or services. The local authority provides the access and the services, perhaps increasing the value of the land and house tenfold. We are not saying that we shall penalise the owner-occupier. From the point of view of the market value of the house it bears no Capital Gains Tax and on the development value—the windfall profit—we are exempting one-tenth of the value.
In a developed part of a town there may be two identical houses, but for commercial purposes, or for the purpose of denser development, the house on the corner site will receive permission for development. It may be a most attractive site, and become a valuable one. The owner-occupier may have decided to redevelop or sell his land and house for redevelopment, and we say, "You are not prejudiced in the value of your own house. You can buy another house and the market value is not affected. It does not bear Capital Gains Tax. But it is right and proper that the windfall profit should attract the levy."
If I made such an exemption as is proposed, then within the exemption there would be bound to be anomalies; everyone knows that. It would be inequitable to allow a distinction between people occupying adjoining properties, where one of them took advantage of increased development value.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does not the same apply to the exemption which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made in respect of Capital Gains Tax?

Mr. Willey: No. This Amendment would be a concession—if we regard it as a concession—to the person who takes the enhanced value through redevelopment. The market value of the house bears no levy because the levy does not touch the current use value. It does not attract Capital Gains Tax, either. The person who redevelops his house can buy a similar house without being prejudiced. Over and above that, he has the enhanced value created by the prospects of redevelopment. Upon that


the Land Commission will impose a levy of 40 per cent.
I have given two cases which I am sure hon. Members will agree could not be covered if the exemption were made, but I will give a simple case. A house may have a market value of £5,000. Because there is planning consent to redevelop, the house is pulled down and the land redeveloped, and the value may be £10,000. In selling his house and leaving it for redevelopment, the owner will get rather more than £8,000. I do not know how that can be regarded as unfair and unjust. We are saying that the owner-occupier will not suffer Capital Gains Tax. We have recognised his position, and if he sells his house to go to another part of the country, he will not be prejudiced. But it is right and proper that he should suffer the levy on the development value.

Mr. Eyre: Has the Minister considered the cost of administering this so-called equity? Since he has quoted accurate figures, he must have some idea of the proportion of the £7 million that it will cost to run the Land Commission that will be spent in collecting the small percentage which will yield this levy. He said that there will be over 1,500,000 transactions a year which will yield nothing in the levy. Surely the collection will not be profitable to the State, on the figures which he has given.

Mr. Willey: I do not like to be raised by 50 per cent. every time I make a statement. I said previously—not tonight—that there would be about 1 million of those transactions.
I emphasised that this is not an attractive argument administratively, and I have shown that if one were to deal with it one would have much greater administrative difficulty than lies in the simple task of dealing with the Stamp Duty form. I am concerned with the bother of collecting a small amount of levy. If we could devise ways of doing it, we could consider the matter. But it cannot be disputed that if we made this exception we should be excepting cases in which there was a substantial amount of development value involved.

12 m.

Mrs. Jill Knight: Whenever the Opposition

point to particularly foolish or unjust parts of legislation the immediate retort from the Government is, "You need not worry about this, because it will not apply to very many people".
I am becoming suspicious of the Minister using that argument in this case. If this part of the Bill will not apply to the majority of people and if we have no need to worry, why have it in the Measure? It is all very fine for the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that 85 per cent. to 90 per cent. of owner-occupiers will not be affected, but is he certain of his figures? It has not been made sufficiently clear in which circumstances owner-occupiers will have to pay the levy. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that only 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. of owner-occupied property would be developed. But that is surely not the only way in which a property could become more valuable and, therefore, be liable for the betterment levy.
If an owner-occupier lives in a house which has a small garden in a town where the town council decides to revise the town plan and increase the density of the area from, say, 50 to 80 houses per acre, and the owner-occupier goes on living in the house and it is not to be pulled down, would that owner-occupier become liable to pay the levy? We do not know how often local authorities increase densities. The frequency with which that happens must have a bearing on this case. These examples immediately spring to mind. There must be others. That is why I question whether the right hon. Gentleman's estimate of 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. owner-occupiers being affected can be correct.
I am also puzzled by the right hon. Gentleman's claim that owner-occupiers will not need to fill in more forms than they must already complete. As I understand the position, the seller of the property will be liable to pay the betterment levy, whereas at present the buyer or the solicitor acting for the buyer must fill in the appropriate forms. Will the same forms apply in the same way? It seems, from what we have been told so far, that in future owner-occupiers will, on selling their houses, have to fill in these forms.
Although we have been told that no more forms than are at present needed


will have to be completed, that does not tie up with what we have so far understood about the Bill. In view of the number of questions that remain unanswered, I cannot be satisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's soothing syrup when he says, in effect, "You have nothing to worry about. It will not apply very many people." If that is true, and if it will not apply to many people, what the heck is it doing in the Bill?

Mr. Bessell: When the Minister replied to the remarks of the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) he made the best possible case for the Amendment, for he said that in his view 85 per cent. to 90 per cent. of all transactions in land would be exempt from the levy. But that does not mean that the vendors or purchasers will be exempt from notifying the Commission of those transactions. This means that the work which will be involved in 85 per cent. to 90 per cent. of all the transactions that will be notified to the Commission will be totally abortive, will be a totally unnecessary expense to the taxpayer and will reduce by a substantial amount any benefit which might accrue to the Exchequer as a result of the betterment levy.
This reasonable Amendment should commend itself to the Government, not only because it would ease the amount of work that will have to be undertaken by the Commission, but because it would satisfy a principle to which I do not believe the Government have the slightest objection. It is that where a land transaction takes place involving a small amount of money the owner-occupier should be exempt from all the complexities and difficulties which the Bill presents.
However much I might disagree with much that is contained in the Bill, I am certain that the Government deserve credit for introducing a Bill designed to prevent land speculation and to prevent those who have abused the natural right and the inheritance of the people in this way for far too long. I pay that tribute to the Government because I am sure that that is the intention of the Bill. But there can be no question whatever when we are dealing with one plot of land owner and occupied by one person and his family of that person being a

land speculator. He is not someone going into business with the intention of buying properties in the City of London, putting them together and seeking to make a vast profit. He may have the good fortune, but not through design or cupidity, to discover that the house he occupies suddenly has an enhanced value.
Surely it is not the wish of the Government to rob someone of something that he has acquired in this way? [HON. MEMBERS: "It is."] If that is the intention of the Government, let us be clear about it. I disagree with hon. and right hon. Members on the Conservative benches; I do not believe that is the intention. I believe that the intention is to get at the land speculator, but it is ridiculous to associate the land speculator with the owner-occupier. The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) may have been right when he suggested that the Minister was being plain obstinate about this. There are about 8 million owner-occupiers and everyone of them will be affected by the provisions of this Bill.
It may be that they or their successors will have only to make a notification in the event of a sale and that may be only a paper transaction, but what a waste of time. We are looking for efficient government. We want to see the Civil Service working more effectively. Yet we have this nonsense of notifications, many thousands—perhaps half a million —of which could be avoided each year by accepting an Amendment on these lines. The principle has been well established. In the 1965 Finance Act, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer showed greater charity and wisdom. Section 29(2) of that Act states clearly that capital gain
shall not be a chargeable gain if the dwelling-house or part of the dwelling-house has been the individual's only or main residence throughout the period of ownership, or throughout the period of ownership except for all or any part of the last twelve months of that period".
That was a sensible and reasonable provision. I cannot understand why we have this complete contradiction of existing Government policy—and a contradiction of all radical policy expressed throughout this century on the subject of land. I had occasion recently to look at this for another purpose and found that as long ago as 1928 David Lloyd George


was advocating throughout the country in his "Land and Nation" programme a betterment tax. He introduced it earlier, in a Budget prior to 1910. In the proposals by radical Governments, the Liberal Party and indeed the Labour Party of those days there was never any question of imposing a tax of this kind on the owner-occupier. The ludicrous part about it is that there is no intention of doing so today. It is simply that we cannot discover a formula whereby to exempt the owner-occupier from notification.
I see a weakness in the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames. If we say that we will exempt all land which is owner-occupied, if it includes a residence and a garden or grounds of up to an acre, I see possibilities of serious evasion of the intention. If I had an acre of land on which I had a house in the middle of the City of London or the City of Westminster, there is no doubt that it would yield me a fat profit if I were lucky enough to find the right developer. In such a case, there is reason for expecting that a land shark might well abuse the intentions of such an exemption as is suggested by the Amendment.
There is, however, no reason why a ceiling value should not be placed upon it. I am sure that the Minister's ingenuity has not diminished so much as a result of his difficulties with the Bill that he cannot find a formula. There is no reason why an owner-occupied property should not be exempt provided that it had a value on the first appointed day of, say, £4,000 or £5,000. Such a formula would overcome all the problems and difficulties which are contained in the Amendment as it has been proposed.
Had the Government come forward with an alternative proposal, it would have been not only sensible, but equitable and in keeping with all the intentions which have been expressed concerning this Measure. I regret deeply that they have not done this, that they have not eased the burden on the taxpayer which will result from all these unnecessary notifications, and the anxiety that will be needlessly and unnecessarily caused to owner-occupiers.
If the "little" man is fortunate enough to make a swift gain on the property which he has owned or inherited or into which he has put all his savings, let him do it. He is not a land speculator or shark. Let that man have a chance. I believe that the Government's reputation would be greatly enhanced and that their intentions would be in no way undermined.

Mr. Graham Page: The Minister has said that he cannot find a formula for relieving the owner-occupier of this burden—and which would relieve the Land Commission of the job of investigating these cases. Surely, it is not beyond the wit of his draftsmen, and of himself in giving instructions, to find the formula if he really wants to find it. The House must conclude that he has given up trying to do so and that he does not want to relieve the owner-occupier.
The Minister has astonished the House tonight by telling us that, he thinks, only one in every ten transactions will be charged to levy and that the figure is even less for owner-occupiers. These figures must be open to suspicion. What about the pre-1914 house which can be turned into flats? That has a development value. There are a good many of those houses. What about the house which has become near a shopping area, a shopping area having been built near it, and which has increased its value in that way?

Mr. Skeffington: The case which the hon. Member has mentioned of a house which is turned into flats is not material development. Therefore, it certainly would not attract the levy. If he bases his case on that kind of calculation, it is wholly irrelevant.

Mr. Page: It is material development according to the Bill. What the Minister may do by way of regulation, I do not know—he has not told us—but in the Bill a conversion of a house into flats is material development.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Willey: I apologise for making an intervention, but the hon. Gentleman must not go on saying that he does not know what will be in the Material Development Regulations when I explained this at great length in Standing Committee


and said that if he wished to raise any point upon it I would of course consider it

Mr. Page: Are we to understand, then, that the conversion of any dwelling-house into flats is not material development and, therefore, will not be charged to levy? The prospect of it will not be included in the development value? This is valuable, if this is going to be so, but what about other cases—the house with a gable end on it where an advertisement can be placed? As the advertisement is to be material development that house has a development value. This, when it is investigated by the Land Commission, will be chargeable. What about the case which my hon. Friend put just now, the change in the development plan which has increased the value of the property because the density has been changed? This is an increase in the net development value and this will be chargeable.
There are many more cases than one in ten, and I am sure this figure is suspect, but if in fact it is only one in ten, why on earth is it being included in the Bill at all? Why are we having the owner-occupier in at all if nine out of ten are to escape the levy? Even with the one, the right hon. Gentleman says, "he has got only just to fill in a form." He has got only to fill in a form and wait and wait and wait—six years before escaping the levy.

Mr. Skeffington: Nonsense.

Mr. Page: Six years before he escapes the levy. This is in the Bill. If the

Parliamentary Secretary wants to deny it I will give way.

Mr. Skeffington: Yes, I do. There is a later Amendment on which we can deal with the matter more fully, but I have explained to the hon. Gentleman time and time again that in the normal course of events the Commission will be able to settle the matter within a matter of months. The hon. Gentleman drags in the six years everytime, and that is completely misleading, and I think he knows it.

Mr. Page: "In the normal course of events." We do not know what the normal course of events is or will be. What we know is that the Bill prevents the owner-occupier from asking the Commission to tell him whether he will be liable or not; he has to wait six years before he can be certain.
On the sale of a home there is, almost invariably, the purchase of a home. When a man sells his home he does so in order to buy another home. If he has to pay this tax, this levy, on the sale of a home, it is in fact a tax on buying a home. Let the public be quite clear about this. If there is only one owner-occupier in every ten who has to pay for buying a home, then it is a shame he should do so, and it is shocking that this Government should bring that sort of legislation before us.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the words so restored to the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 100, Noes 146.

Division No. 258.]
AYES
[12.20 a.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Eden, Sir John
Hornby, Richard


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Elliott, R. W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Iremonger, T. L.


Baker, W. H. K.
Eyre, Reginald
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Batsford, Brian
Farr, John
Jopling, Michael


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Kimball, Marcus


Bessell, Peter
Fortescue, Tim
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Biffen, John
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Body, Richard
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Goodhart, Philip
Lubbock, Eric


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Goodhew, Victor
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Grant, Anthony
Maddan, Martin


Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col. Sir Walter
Grant-Ferris, R.
Maude, Angus


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Grieve, Percy
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Carlisle, Mark
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Clegg, Walter
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Cooke, Robert
Harvie Anderson, Miss
More, Jasper


Cordle, John
Hastings, Stephen
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Currie, C. B. H.
Heseltine, Michael
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Dalkeith, Earl of
Hill, J. E. B.
Murton, Oscar


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Holland, Philip
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael




Onslow, Cranley
Russell, Sir Ronald
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Osborn, John (Hallam)
Sharples, Richard
Weatherill, Bernard


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Pardoe, John
Sinclair, Sir George
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Smith, John
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Percival, Ian
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Pink, R. Bonner
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Worsley, Marcus


Prior, J. M. L.
Tilney, John



Pym, Francis
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Mr. Timothy Kitson and Mr. Hector Monro.


Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John



Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Vickers, Dame Joan





NOES


Allaun Frank (Salford, E.)
Ginsburg, David
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Alldritt, Walter
Gourlay, Harry
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Allen, Scholefield
Gregory, Arnold
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Anderson, Donald
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Newens, Stan


Archer, Peter
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Norwood, Christopher


Armstrong, Ernest
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Ogden, Eric


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
O'Malley, Brian


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Haseldine, Norman
Orme, Stanley


Bence, Cyril
Hazell, Bert
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Binns, John
Henig, Stanley
Pavitt, Laurence


Blackburn, F.
Hooley, Frank
Percy, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Booth, Albert
Horner, John
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Brooks, Edwin
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Howie, W.
Price, William (Rugby)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Probert, Arthur


Brown, Bob (N'ctle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hunter, Adam
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Cant, R. B.
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Carmichael, Neil
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St. P' cras, S.)
Rose, Paul


Coe, Denis
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Coleman, Donald
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Concannon, J. D.
Kelley, Richard
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Crawshaw, Richard
Kenyon, Clifford
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Lawson, George
Skeffington, Arthur


Dalyell, Tam
Leadbitter, Ted
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Ledger, Ron
Taverne, Dick


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Lee, John (Reading)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Thornton, Ernest


Delargy, Hugh
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Tinn, James


Dickens, James
Lomas, Kenneth
Urwin, T. W.


Dobson, Ray
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Doig, Peter
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Driberg, Tom
McBride, Neil
Watkins, David (Consett)


Dunn, James A.
McCann, John
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Dunnett, Jack
MacColl, James
Wellbeloved, James


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Macdonald, A. H.
Whitaker, Ben


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McGuire, Michael
Whitlock, William


Ellis, John
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherford)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Ennals, David
Mackintosh, John P.
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Maclennan, Robert
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Fernyhough, E.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Woof, Robert


Forrester, John
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Yates, Victor


Fowler, Gerry
Mapp, Charles
Zilliacus, K.


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Marquand, David



Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
Mendelson, J. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gardner, Tony
Millan, Bruce
Mr. Joseph Harper and Mr. Edward Bishop.


Garrett, W. E.
Milne, Edward (Blyth)

Clause 44.—(NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT OF LEVY.)

Mr. Body: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the words so restored to the Bill, in page 48, line 43, to leave out 'years' and to insert 'months'.
This Amendment is intended to be helpful and constructive. The objective is to prevent undue delay and it may well be that the Minister will be persuaded to take the advice of Dryden, in his Tyrannic Love:

All delays are dangerous in war.
The title has two words which can describe the feelings of the right hon. Gentleman for this Measure.
Delays of up to six years will, as the Parliamentary Secretary emphasised, be dangerous in the war of negotiations that must break out between the Land Commission and whoever is selling his property—dangerous to both sides.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider again the 10 per cent. he


told us about, because no doubt the Land Commission, like the Inland Revenue, will expect the man liable to levy to be a sensible, prudent man who will put to one side a sum of money sufficient to enable him to pay it when called upon to do so.
Unless the right hon. Gentleman accepts the Amendment, it must follow that, at any time, a man may be called upon to pay within six years after the transaction. It is intolerable to expect anyone to be so prudent as to set aside such a sum of money for such a long period. It becomes particularly difficult in times of credit squeeze and, if predictions are correct, in times of still heavier taxation, which we may have soon.
12.30 a.m.
It is also dangerous to the Land Commission. One would hope that good public relations would be used. In that hope I would invite the right hon. Gentleman to consider the kind of criticism that has come down upon the head of the Inland Revenue when it has sought either to extract taxation long after the event, or to prosecute someone for failing to pay taxes long after the event. The judges have been critical when it has delayed for unconscionable periods of time.
I thought that the right hon. Gentleman might oppose this Amendment on the ground that there would be so much congestion in the office of the Land Commission that there would have to be six years to consider all of these notifications. We understand that it will now only be about 10 per cent., but the total number of notifications in any one year will be 2,500,000. If there is to be a six-year queue the right hon. Gentleman could say that the Commission will have 15 million files to consider, and it would be quite impossible to do that.
Now we are told that only about 10 per cent. of the transactions will be affected by the levy. We know that there are to be only 2,000 employed in the Commission to deal with that 10 per cent., and if the Amendment is accepted it is merely a matter of these officials handling four assessments a day. That is not an unreasonable figure. If that cannot be managed by the officials, it is not a very hopeful prospect for the house-owners of the country.
Both the right hon. Gentleman and his Parliamentary Secretary were students of law and they will possibly have remembered the saying of the Chancery Division: delay defeats equity. I hope that it has not been forgotten because in his last speech we heard the word equity "at least a dozen times from the right hon. Gentleman. I would suggest that delay does defeat equity and there will certainly be no equity here if those who sell their land may not have the transaction completed for six years. It is a long time and it is wholly unreasonable
If the Land Commission is efficient, and if there are only to be 10 per cent. of cases, there is no reason why this Amendment should not be accepted. If the misery will be nasty and brutish, at least let it be short as well.

Mr. Skeffington: One of the fascinating features in a debate of this kind is to see how arguments used by hon. Gentlemen opposite are turned completely on their heads by the same hon. Members in moving a subsequent Amendment. Only a short time ago they were saying how essential it was to delay the first appointed day, and now the hon. Gentleman is standing that argument upon its head and saying that this delay is not suitable. The Amendment was moved constructively, but one of the principal reasons why the Government must reject it is that it would be extremely unfair to the levy payer. The Amendment is based on what appears to be a misunderstanding of the whole process of the statement of levy, with which we have dealt.
The procedure will be this. When a chargeable act or event has occurred and it is notified to the Commission, the Commission will, in a number of cases, wish to make further inquiries. If it does not wish to make further inquiries, it can either say that there is levy due or there is not, but in a number of cases it will want to inquire further. During this period, it will endeavour—I say this again on the basis of the advice and discussions we have already had in setting up the Commission—to come to an informal agreement at a very early stage with the levy payer. It will be on that kind of basis that the operation should and will take place.
In the normal course of events, even if the Commission has to make some


inquiry—I repeat what I said earlier on another Amendment—we are confident that it will generally be able to come to its decision and notify the levy payer informally, or even formally, within a matter of months.
The Amendment, on the other hand, would force the Commission in this case to give notice of assessment within six months although it might be impossible for the Commission to do so if in that period it had not received the information which it must have in order to make the assessment. This would be nonsense. No one can suggest that the Commission should be statutorily bound to give a notice of assessment when the facts into which it is asked to inquire have not been given to it.
We are convinced—I give the assurance on the basis of the inquiries we have made—that in the overwhelming majority of eases the Commission will be able to give its decision within a matter of months, but there will be cases—some were mentioned in the Standing Committee—when there may be overlapping charges, when the levy payer may be awaiting transactions in connection with his interest which require investigation, when he cannot within the time give the information which the Commission wants. In fairness to the levy payer, there should be additional time in such cases. That is why the uttermost limit of six years, or three years, has been adopted. These periods have been taken from the existing Income Tax provisions; they have worked over many years very satisfactorily, on the whole.
A maximum period has been allowed in these cases, though, as I say, in the overwhelming majority of cases the assessment would be much before that. It would be much against the interests of the levy payer to say that he should be precluded from awaiting the results of certain negotiations in connection with other interests in the chargeable act or event before he could make his additional return to the Commission, and to say that this cannot be done because the Commission must serve its notice of assessment in six months.
As that would be a great disservice to the levy payer, and as the assessment would be given in the overwhelming majority of cases within a matter of

months, I hope that the Amendment will not be pressed.

Mr. Graham Page: I had hoped that the Parliamentary Secretary would make some offer of relief to the levy payer from the position in which he will be put of not knowing whether he will be liable. It would have been quite possible to offer a procedure, by way of regulations, for a clearance certificate so that there was not this business of the levy payer not knowing and not being able to force the Commission to tell him for six years whether he is liable to levy or not.
I say "levy payer", but let us not call him that. Let us call him what he is, the ordinary citizen who sells his house, who carries out any of the other transactions which are chargeable such as letting his house or carrying out some development.
We have tried on previous Amendments to think along the same lines as the Minister in considering so many years for the Commission, but we ought to have a completely different conception of it now. When I submit deeds for adjudication for stamp duty on a voluntary conveyance, it does not take the stamp duty authorities six years or even six months to tell me what the stamp ought to be.

Mr. L. M. Lever: It takes a long time.

Mr. Page: It does not; it does not take six months.

Mr. Lever: It takes a long time, too long.

The Speaker: Order. One sedentary interruption is enough.

Mr. Page: When I submit an Inland Revenue affidavit to the Estate Duty authorities for the assessment of Estate Duty it does not take six years or six months for the answer. When I submit an application for registration of land at the Land Registry it does take them rather a long time, but it does not take them six years or even six months. I have quoted cases all of which deal with valuation. Somebody has got to value the property before they can tell me how much my client owes under these transactions.
Why cannot we have the same service from the Land Commission as we have


from the stamp duty authorities, the Estate Duty authorities and H.M. Land Registry? There is no reason why the Land Commission should set itself above all these concerns and keep citizens waiting all this time.
A simple form of clearance certificate can be obtained from the Estate Duty Office and the same sort of procedure could be applied to the Land Commission. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will think about this seriously and see if he can bring something into the Regulations, if not into the Bill now, to relieve the citizen of this sword of Damocles hanging over his head.

Mr. Skeffington: In the normal case what the hon. Gentleman has called a clearance certificate will be the notice of assessment. If there is any other way in which we can help the levy payer my right hon. Friend will see what can be done, but normally the notice of assessment will be the certificate and that will be the end of the matter.

Mr. Page: I do not think the hon. Gentleman has understood the point clearly. The point is that the victim should be entitled to demand a statement as to whether he is liable within a certain period, not just wait for the notification.

Amendment to the words so restored to the Bill negatived.

Clause 49.—(OPERATIVE ASSESSMENT OF LEVY.)

Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move as an Amendment to the words so restored to the Bill, in page 52, line 26, at end insert:

(c) the proceedings on a case so stated and signed are abandoned or otherwise disposed of without a decision being given on it;
(d) an appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Session on such a case is abandoned or otherwise ceases to have effect or the time for bringing any such appeal expires without its having been brought.
My right hon. Friend has taken advantage of this stage to give slightly greater precision to this Clause in relation to when a notice of assessment becomes operative in certain cases. The Amendment will certainly make for greater precision. It may not have been absolutely essential, but we have taken advantage of this stage to make this absolutely clear.
There is the case where there has been an appeal by the service of a proper counter-notice either from the Lands Tribunal to the Court of Appeal or from the Court of Appeal to the House of Lords, and then it has been abandoned, and it might be held not to be absolutely certain when the notice of assessment becomes operative.

Mr. Body: May I say on behalf of my hon. Friends that we on this side do not oppose this Amendment, but it does look as if this was needed because there was some rather slipshod drafting. Quite clearly there was a loophole here which, quite properly, the Government now wish to fill. One wonders whether there may not subsequently emerge more faults of this type.
12.45 a.m.
This highlights the fact that this was a badly-drafted Bill which should never have had an omission such as this. This is an example of what can happen when we have before the House a Bill as incomprehensible and indigestible as this. Had the Bill been written in plain English we would have spotted this matter long ago and the Amendment would not have been necessary at this stage.

Amendment to the words so restored to the Bill agreed to.

Clause 52.—(SECURITY FOR LEVY IN CASE OF POSTPONEMENT OR PAYMENT BY INSTALMENTS.)

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the words so restored to the Bill, in page 55, line 30, to leave out subsection (2).
In our proceedings on 27th October the Opposition persuaded the Government that we ought to amend the previous subsection (1) of Clause 52. We replaced the words then in the Bill, which expressly included a charge on levy payers' interest in land to which the assessment relates making his interest liable for the outstanding amount. We replaced those words by the phrase:
… the Commission may require him to give such security as may appear to the Commission reasonably sufficient …
The necessary Scottish translation in subsection (2) is thus no longer required.
Of course, in the other place no Amendment could be made to Part III


of the Bill in this respect, so this is our first opportunity to do so. I am certain that the Opposition, in their generous frame of mind, will agree that this ought to be done since we were in the initial stage responding to a request of their's that we should make the other change.

Amendment to the words so restored to the Bill agreed to.

Clause 57.—(CHARITIES.)

Mr. Rossi: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the words so restored to the Bill, in page 58, line 19, to leave out from 'chargeable' to the end of line 26 on page 59 and to insert 'on any charity'.
I trust that this Amendment will commend itself to the House if only for the reason that it seeks to replace some 50 lines of print by three words. Any Amendment which does this should commend itself immediately to hon. Members on both sides of the House.
The purpose of the Amendment is clearly to exempt charities from all betterment levy. As the Bill stands, a distinction is drawn between the purposes for which a charity holds land. During the Committee stage the Minister stated that there are three ways in which a charity may hold land. It may hold it for functional purposes—that is, the actual use purposes of the charity. There, we were told, it was exempt from levy because it was quite impossible to calculate the base value of the land that was being used by a charity for its functional purposes, and therefore the Government could conceive no way of being able to charge a charity with levy on its functional land. The inference seemed to be that if they could have found a way they would have done so.
The second way in which a charity may hold land is for the purposes of its endowment. There we were told that it was not the Government's intention to charge the levy, because some compromise had been reached with the charities over that matter.
The third way in which a charity may hold land is for investment purposes. The Government propose, through the 50 lines of print, to charge charities betterment levy when they deal with land they hold for such purposes. That is a

complete departure from the Government's traditional attitude on charities and fiscal matters. Right through our Income Tax measures, Capital Gains Tax and other fiscal matters, charities have traditionally been exempt to help them with their work, which has always been considered to be in the social interest.
It is now felt that they must be charged when they dispose of their investment land and convert it, for example, into stocks and shares. Although the interest from those stocks and shares will continue to bring money into the charities to be used for charitable purposes, the Government say, "Before you do that we shall take a cut from you." That is a complete departure from the traditional attitude. It has been argued that this is not a tax. The Government say, "We are not really taxing a charity; we are merely raising a levy on it." But, as was so aptly said earlier this evening, the distinction between a levy and a tax is too fine for the paying party to appreciate.
A charity will have to pay money to the Government by way of fiscal charge, to use a neutral term, whether that is called a levy or a tax. We regret that this departure from the traditions of our approach to charities should be made in that way. We hope that even at this late stage in the Bill's progress the Minister will soften his heart towards charitable purposes and not try to take a cut from the charities, but leave their money where it is so that it continues to be used for good social work.

Mr. Body: It is very sad that the Government cannot give way on this matter. Since time immemorial, charities have been immune from taxation, and for generations they have sought to invest their proceeds in land. One would have thought that that was a right and sensible thing for trustees to do, because land has a certain constancy of value, but the Bill will make charities seek other outlets for their funds. The Government will drive them into investing in the Stock Exchange and elsewhere, where the risks will be greater and where the sensible trustee would be loath to move.
I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider this. It is obviously sensible for the trustees of a


charity to put their surplus funds into land, as they have done for generations. They know that that land will always have a certain value and will not just disappear overnight, as an investment on the Stock Exchange or elsewhere might. The effect of the Bill is that trustees will shy off land and will invest elsewhere. I do not believe that that is wise for beneficiaries. It is not good practice, and hardship may result.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not adopt some tortuous division between a levy and a tax. Legalistically, there may be a difference, but a board of trustees considering the best way in which to invest its money will not be influenced by that sort of legalistic difference. It will be a payment out to the Government, and trustees will not heed any nice distinction between the concept of taxation and that of a levy.
I very much regret the Government's decision. It is a departure from a very long and well established tradition. It has been well recognised by the courts for many years. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider this, because it will be a bad day for charities if their funds go elsewhere.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I support what has been said about the Government's proposal being a departure from the well established principle that charities do not have direct taxation imposed upon them. The reason for it has been obvious. The State has thought it wrong to abstract from charitable uses into its own coffers funds which otherwise would go to promote the efforts and work of the charity. It has accepted that, if work is charitable, it is in the public interest, and the State should not diminish the funds otherwise available for that purpose.
On an earlier Amendment, I pointed out the difference in the line being taken by the right hon. Gentleman and the line taken by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We had the recent example of the Selective Employment Tax. It is true that, when the Chancellor introduced his Budget, charities would have been liable to pay S.E.T. without refund. When the point was put to the Chancellor, he had the good sense and judgment to withdraw from that position and introduce an

Amendment under which S.E.T. is now repaid to the charities which pay it. That seems to be a very good example and precedent for the right hon. Gentleman, and it comes once again from the supposedly hard-faced tax gathering Department which again has shown sensitivity, after an initial mistake, to the needs of charities.
The whole question of whether a charity in a particular case is liable for the levy will obviously be a very difficult one. One has only to look at the 50 lines of the Bill regulating the matter to see what a problem it will be, particularly for the smaller charities with the small patch of land and without, necessarily, high-powered legal advice. That of itself is quite a burden.
Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, I want to put to him in general terms a case in which I have a particular concern. Take the case of a charity in the form of a direct grant school that owns its own site in an urban area, which is a valuable site from the point of view of development. It desires for good educational reasons to move further out into the country, where there is more room, financing the purchase of its new and more spacious site by the sale of its old premises in the town. There must be many similar cases. I am not clear from my study of the Bill, but in a case where such a school sells what has been its functional land, but will be no longer its functional land, to finance the purchase of its new functional land, will it be bound to pay the levy?
That will be of decisive importance to many first-class institutions. I do not pretend to understand the phraseology of the Clause. It may be the case that the Bill exempts that type of land. If that is so, I should be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for a clear statement giving that assurance. If he cannot, that strengthens the case for the Amendment.
I return to the point that to impose this levy on any aspect of charitable activities seems to be foolish and contrary to well-established custom, and falling far below the standards which, in one respect, I am glad to see that the Treasury has followed.

1.0 a.m.

Mr. Willey: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. He has revealed something which I did not appreciate before,


namely, that there is a misunderstanding in the House about the provisions that we are making. I have complained, and will go on complaining, about the misrepresentation outside the House, and the impression that has been deliberately created that the levy applies to all charities. That is not so. By and large, all charities are exempt. The right hon. Gentleman has given me an opportunity of emphasising this, because he has given an illustration of a case where the charity would clearly be exempt from the levy.
I do not want to speak at length because I thought we had a very effective discussion on Report, and there has been subsequent discussion in the Lords. The report of that discussion indicates that no one has been able to say that the charity in which he is interested would be prejudiced by the Bill; most of those who have been critical have said, "We believe that although the charity in which we are concerned will not be affected, other charities may be." One contribution was made about the Cambridge colleges. It was said that the Cambridge colleges had discussed the position and did not think they would be affected, but that some charities might be. I do not want to repeat what I have said previously, because if I had failed to persuade them so far I will not succeed in doing so now.
The levy is not a tax. The levy attaches to land, and taxation is attached to the person. We must realise that the Commission will buy at a net price. We are creating a new price—the Land Commission price—and the levy operates to see that the vendor gets the same whether he sells the land to the Commission or someone else
I admit that I have been illogical, but it is sometimes worth while being illogical. I followed precedent, and said that land used for the purposes of a charity would not be subject to the levy. But I went beyond that and said that I would exempt all permanent endowment land. I did this because one could say that this land attaches to itself the character of the charity.
There remains the question of investment land. That arises where a charity has a surplus income and invests not in stocks and shares but in land, as a

sound investment. Current use value is not affected, but a benefit from speculative profit or windfall gain is subject to levy because the land has a development value and has been used as an investment to secure income. I have been accused of using the word "equity" too often, but I will use it once more. We must consider equity. The land has a development value, and it would be wrong to exempt it, whereas it is right, although perhaps illogical, to exempt permanent endowment land.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am glad that the Minister said that, because it helps a little, but I am still rather confused about it. He insists that this is a levy and not a tax, but from the point of view of the charity it does not matter what it is called; it is the amount that they must pay that counts.
I should like to put to him a case which is not hypothetical but is well known to me. As I have not given him notice, I do not expect a detailed reply now. This is an almshouse in East Anglia which, in addition to the land on which the house stands, has a small piece of agricultural land which has yielded what the Minister described as surplus income. It has been a profit-making operation for the benefit of the almshouse and it has enabled some of the elderly people living there to have a somewhat better life than otherwise they would have had. The almshouse charity intends to sell a proportion of that income-bearing property and intends to make a profit and to use the profit for the purpose of building an extension to the almshouse. The charity will be making use of some beneficial land which it owns in order to use the profit for the purpose of the charity, and for no other purpose.
I do not ask the Minister to deal with the case in detail, but could he give me a general answer to this question: if the charity uses surplus yielding land attached to it and makes a profit, will it have to pay the levy if it uses the money obtained from the land for a charitble purpose?

Mr. Bessell: I do not want to detain the House, but I genuinely seek guidance from the Minister. Consider the case of a church in a city area which no longer has a large congregation and which has the good fortune to receive an offer from


a speculator or developer. It sells the land on which the church is built at a considerably enhanced price with the express purpose of using the money to build another church in a highly populated area—a transaction that it would not ordinarily undertake. This might enable a church which is dying to serve a new community in quite different circumstances. Would betterment levy be charged and, if so, is not that wholly inequitable?

Mr. Willey: One would have to know the circumstances of the case but, from what has been said—and I make these comments subject to qualification—I would imagine that a question of levy would not arise in the first case. I say no more than that. It would probably not arise because, from the hon. Gentleman's remarks, it would seem to be a case involving permanent endowment land. The same would appear to be the position in the second case. From what both hon. Gentlemen said, I would imagine that no question of levy would arise.

Mr. Graham Page: The Government spokesman in the House of Lords stated —although I do not have the OFFICIAL REPORT of his exact words—that charities were relieved not because they were virtuous but because of the difficulty of assessing them. Is this the principle on which the right hon. Gentleman is proceeding? It is not the principle which I have always thought was recognised in relieving charities from taxation. I thought they have been relieved because they are run for charitable purposes, with any profits and gains being used for such purposes.
Has the Minister chosen to place a levy on land held for investment purposes because it is nice and easy to assess that, and has he disregarded the fact that it is held by a charity, which he would not have relieved had it occurred to him that it was a charity and that whatever gains or profits it makes automatically go to charitable purposes?
There seemed to be something illogical in the right hon. Gentleman's argument. I followed the reason in his mind as to why he had not placed the levy on part of the charity but had placed it on another part. Surely, if there is logic in

that, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have done the same thing with Capital Gains Tax. A charity is relieved of Capital Gains Tax on its investment land. There is no reason why it should not be relieved of the levy. There cannot be any real distinction between the imposition of taxation and the imposition of levy on that investment land held by the charity.
We are, therefore, puzzled as to why the Government should have imposed the levy on any part of charitable property. It is charitable property and any profit or gain is used for charitable purposes. If it is used for any other purpose, then by all means catch it with the levy. But we are talking about a charity that invests its money in land. Whatever gain is made, it goes to charitable purposes and it is wrong that any tax or levy should be imposed on that gain.

Amendment to the words so restored to the Bill negatived.

Clause 58.—(STATUTORY UNDERTAKERS AND NATIONAL COAL BOARD.)

Mr. Farr: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the words so restored to the Bill, in page 60, line 39, at the end to insert:
(7) This section shall come into operation on such date as the Minister may by regulations appoint such date not being earlier than two years after the second appointed day.
The inclusion of these words would improve the Bill, because my hon. Friends and I believe it to be manifestly unfair that the large nationalised State concerns—British Railways, the National Coal Board and the others—should escape payment of any betterment levy while their private enterprise competitors, who are in direct competition with them in many spheres of activity, should pay the levy at the full rate of 40 per cent. or whatever figure may be used.
It is unfair that, for example, our nationalised electrical concerns should escape paying any form of levy, although, in the high street of virtually every town and city, they are running their own showrooms in which they are selling the same electrical appliances as their private enterprise competitors are selling, perhaps in adjoining shops. If a private firm next door to one of the State-owned showrooms wants to develop its shop and improve it or move to new premises


and enlarge the company's activities, it must pay the levy at the full rate on the improvements it makes. Yet if the electricity authority builds a new showrooms, moves its showroom or enlarges it, it pays no levy whatever.

1.15 a.m.

Mr. Skeffington: I think the hon. Member is wrong. We had a long discussion about this in Committee but that is no reason why we should not discuss it again. Normally the exemption applies to functional land. Electricity showrooms would not be on functional land and, if there were a question of levy arising, it would be paid on them.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) will soon come to his Amendment.

Mr. Farr: I am seeking to show that it is advantageous to postpone implementation of this Clause until the end of the period stated on the Notice Paper.
With respect to the Parliamentary Secretary, what we discussed or what he thought in Committee bears no relevance to what is in the Bill. It is this Bill when it has passed all its stages which will become the law of the land. I have received this advice from baffled expert advisers regarding the electricity industry and I shall interpret it concerning other nationalised industries. One of the reasons why we think this postponement should take place is that it is frightfully unfair that the National Coal Board in its brick-making activities—it is not generally realised that it is about the biggest single producer of bricks in the country—when it develops land for the purpose of those activities, will do so levy-free. Yet the London Brick Company, or a smaller private company producing bricks, will pay levy on new buildings or developments.
The same applies throughout the nationalised industries. British Railways are extending activities in building railway engines. Why should expansion that British Railways undertake to construct engines on a bigger scale be carried out levy-free while private companies, struggling to compete with British Railways in the market for railway engines be forced to pay the full levy of 40 per cent.

or whatever it may be on new buildings they erect for construction of engines?
The same applies to British Road Services and the nationalised bus undertakings. If those bus undertakings build new depôts or offices they will be levy free. There are still quite a number of private bus companies. If they build depôts or offices on new ground or develop, they will pay the full 40 per cent.
Those examples are bad enough.

Mr. Skeffington: They are not correct.

Mr. Farr: Some of them were raised in Committee and dealt with inadequately by the Minister and his Parliamentary colleague, but since we concluded the Committee stage and since this Measure went through the House of Lords there has been an addition to the privileged collection of industries, these State concerns which are took weak and puny to carry on activities without being in a privileged position—the steel companies to be taken over by the State. This affords a new subject for attention, because those major steel companies which are to be taken over will be allowed to carry on their activities levy-free. Their competitors, however—and there will still be quite a lot of private steel companies in existence—will be required to pay the 40 per cent. levy on any activities which they conduct of a leviable nature. I suggest that those iron and steel companies which are to be nationalised have every chance of a very profitable future if they are to be allowed to continue their work levy-free against the remaining part of the industry which is not being nationalised and which has to pay levy at the full rate.
One of the reasons why I move the Amendment to postpone by the period indicated the implementation of the Clause is that to keep pace with modern innovation and invention, many of the steel companies, both those which are to be nationalised and those which are not, have continually to expand and alter their plant and build new mills and production units. We on this side think it grossly unfair that those concerns which are to be nationalised can construct their new buildings levy-free while the smaller competing firms which remain in private ownership must struggle to pay the full rate of 40 per cent. levy.

Mr. Skeffington: indicated dissent.

Mr. Farr: The Parliamentary Secretary is anxious to spring up and say something. He is continually shaking his head. I will listen to him with interest. I can only try in my simple way to interpret to him the views which experts who have studied the Bill have put to me. I hope that the hon. Gentleman can prove me and my hon. Friends who share my views quite wrong in this matter.

Mr. Body: My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) has highlighted a number of anomalies. As he listed some of them, I thought that I overheard the Parliamentary Secretary murmer "Not correct" and repeat that a few times, shaking his head rather vigorously as he did so. Perhaps my hon. Friend is not correct, but at least, when he referred to electricity showrooms, he was echoing the opinion expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary in Committee.
The hon. Gentleman said on 28th July:
By way of illustration, the hon. Gentleman mentioned electricity showrooms and I said I would hazard that these might pay",
but he went on to add
without knowing all the circumstances."—[OFFICIAL RFPORT, Standing Committee E, 28th July, 1966; c. 696.]
On the face of it, however, he believed at that time that they would pay.
I do not want to be unkind—if the hon. Gentleman is now changing his opinion, it would be wholly understandable—but this illustrates once more how wholly unintelligible the Bill is. If after months of study, with the aid of his officials, people who are skilled in this work and who have studied it over many months, the hon. Gentleman reaches a false conclusion, we must expect many other mistaken opinions to be formed in the months that the Land Commission will be in existence. I was going to say "in the years that it will exist" but I hope that it will not exist for years, because I hope that one of the first things that the next Government will do will be to repeal this pernicious piece of legislation. [An HON. MEMBER: "It will be extended."] We now hear from an hon. Member on the back benches opposite that it is to be extended. This

is indeed ominous. May that be enshrined in the Labour Party's manifesto at the next election.

Mr. Speaker: This is fascinating, but the hon. Gentleman must come to the Amendment.

Mr. Body: I am sorry if I yielded to temptation, but it was rather strong.
In highlighting these anomalies my hon. Friend mentioned the National Coal Board, and there is one point with which, I hope, the Parliamentary Secretary will deal. We understand that the Coal Board will not have to bear a levy on its transactions, but what is to be the position of that money which is invested for the purposes of its approved superannuation schemes? As things now stand, such schemes are not subject to taxation, but, as I understand it, this scheme, which is run jointly with the National Union of Mineworkers, will be subject to this levy, and I understand that it has been worked out that it may cost the Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers—because it is, as I say, a joint venture—a sum of no less than £100,000. That is not my calculation. That is a figure which comes—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member cannot go on with this matter. We are discussing an Amendment which suggests
This section shall come into operation …not … earlier than two years after the second appointed day.
The hon. Member must address his remarks a little more closely to the Amendment.

Mr. Body: I apologise, and I will not take the point further, although I understood we were dealing with statutory undertakings, and that was why I sought to have this matter clarified. If I am out of order I certainly will not—

Mr. Speaker: I was lenient to the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, but the Amendment means what is says, and its purpose is to delay the operation of this Section till a date not earlier than two years after the second appointed day. The hon. Member must address himself at some time to that issue.

Mr. Body: I apologise if I have gone further than I should, and, having said that, I will say no more about the point.

Mr. Graham Page: I think it will be convenient if before the Parliamentary Secretary answers the debate I put a question to him. It arises on this Amendment very clearly, because Clause 58 as it stands is unintelligible in some parts and leaves a great deal unknown in other parts. The Parliamentary Secretary really must get the Clause right before it comes into operation. We in the Opposition are very often accused of bad drafting. When one looks at the Clause one sees that the draftsman has been too clever—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not debating the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill". The hon. Member must link his remarks to the Amendment which is before us.

Mr. Page: I did link it in this way, if I may repeat what I said just now, that the Clause—"this section"—ought not to be brought in as it is; the introduction of this into law should be postponed, as we suggest in the Amendment. One of the reasons why I say it should be postponed is in order to get it right.
By subsection (5) of the Clause we are told that any reference to statutory undertakers should be read as a reference to the National Coal Board; if we wish to apply it to the National Coal Board we have to read "National Coal Board" instead of "statutory undertakers". Reading exactly as we are told to do, subsection (1,b) reads:
the relevant land either is operational land of the National Coal Board immediately before that date or has for a period of not less than a year been operational land of the National Coal Board, or of other National Coal Boards…
Do we understand that the Government intend, via this provision, to introduce another National Coal Board, because that is how it reads. That is a minor reason why it should be delayed, but there is another and more important reason.
1.30 a.m.
At this time of the early morning it is rather technical to explain, but it is of very great importance to those who deal with land and statutory undertakers. Under subsection (5,b), the operational land, to which reference is made in the Clause, is to be described in a description prescribed by the Minister. I presume that there are some regulations in draft about this, but we are now asked to pass

the Bill without knowing what it is intended should be operational land.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) referred to the operational land of the electricity boards and the gas boards and so on, their show rooms in the High Street. It is intended by regulation to prescribe that show rooms of the National Coal Board should be operational land?
The importance of this is that the effect of paragraph 10(1) of Schedule 5 is that if one is buying land from an exempt body and it is exempt land, then the purchase price is the base value, from which one calculates the net development value. It is the purchase price whenever the land is bought. Normally, of course, one can use the purchase price as the base value only if it was purchased before the White Paper day, or after the appointed day, but on this occasion the purchase price is the base value whenever the exempt land is bought.
Clause 58(5,b) says that we shall know the exempt land only when the operational land has been prescribed. If these regulations are not to be brought in quickly, the Bill may come into operation before anyone dealing in this land knows how to calculate the net development value.
For this reason the effect of this Clause should be postponed. It ought to be postponed until we have had the opportunity of seeing the proposed regulations, and I would hope that hon. Members and anyone concerned with transactions of this sort would see the draft regulations and that there would be consultations with the Ministry about them. This cannot happen in the next couple of months and therefore the Clause ought to be postponed for some considerable time until we know its effect and until the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister know its effect.

Mr. Skeffington: The main burden of the argument in connection with this Amendment can be disposed of fairly simply. I sought in my intervention to show where the heresy lay. This is a valuation point in so far as a statutory undertaker is exempt in respect of certain categories of land which it is accepted are not in competition with other land. But, where land is in competition,


broadly speaking it will not be exempt. This is the point concerning electricity showrooms. The hon. Gentleman is wrong about the National Steel Corporation, for it will not be a statutory undertaker.
The exemption is made on valuation grounds. Where operational land is being used solely for that purpose, one cannot value it because there is no comparison. Once, however, there is competition, the exemption cannot apply.
As to the general point about what is operational land, I have no doubt about it and have not changed my views. As the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) knows, the 1962 Act is applied both in this provision and elsewhere in relation to operational land. Section 221 defines operational land as land
…used for the purpose of the carrying on of their undertaking and land in which an interest is held for that purpose, not being land which, in respect of its nature and situation, is comparable rather with land in general than with land which is used, or in which interests are held, for the purpose of carrying on of statutory undertakings.
It is because one cannot compare such land that it must be exempt.
There have been complaints by hon. Members opposite that parts of the Bill are not altogether clear. I must say that I do not understand the Amendment. If land is to be exempt because it cannot be valued, we cannot surely postpone exemption for two years. We must give exemption at the beginning. The Amendment is nonsense and I advise the House to reject it.
Operational land is clearly defined in the 1962 Act. If there is doubt as to whether it is operational in respect of a particular undertaking, then it will be for the appropriate Minister to rule accordingly.

Mr. Graham Page: The hon. Gentleman says that operational land is clearly defined. But, as far as the National Coal Board is concerned, operational land is to defined by Clause 58(5,b)—
…land of any description prescribed for the purposes of this subsection.
We do not know what it is yet. That is my complaint and the hon. Gentleman has not dealt with the point.

Amendment to the words so restored to the Bill negatived.

Clause 59.—(HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS.)

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the words so restored to the Bill, in page 61, line 29, to leave out from 'section' to end of line 30 and to insert
'208 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966'.
Like two previous Amendments, the need for this Amendment arises because the Royal Assent was given to the consolidation Measure—the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1966—just before Christmas, after this Bill had left the Commons. The substance of the new subsection is the same as that of the old subsection that we are seeking to delete.

Amendment to the words so restored to the Bill agreed to.

Clause 61.—(EXEMPTION FOR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING-HOUSE BUILT ON LAND ACQUIRED BEFORE 23RD SEPTEMBER 1965.)

Mr. Allason: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the words so restored to the Bill, in page 62, to leave out lines 39 to 42.
Clause 61 exempts from levy a single house built for family occupation on land which the family owns.
But this is only if the land was owned before 23rd September 1965, which was the day after the publication of the White Paper. This is no concession at all to owner-occupiers, it is only a reasonable right. The owner of that land had an expectation that he would be entitled to build on it, and it would have been, as the Minister said, quite unfair if the levy was subsequently charged.
I want to press the case for extending this principle by removing the qualification for the date of the ownership of land, and this Amendment leaves out Clause 61(1,b) so that the qualification of ownership of the land before the date of the White Paper is abandoned. We have already had a debate on owner-occupiers, for whom the Government pretend to have such tender feelings, but in respect of whom they are so harsh.
The Government have, in the Amendment—we have discussed, insisted on taking the levy where an owner-occupier sells, but here they are proposing to take the levy where an intending owner-occupier is to build on a plot of land that he owns. Taking the levy is taxing


that operation. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) has described the sort of case where a plot of land is bought for retirement after the date of the publication of the White Paper, and is a perfectly genuine purchase. This is happening all over the country.
Many people buy a plot of land for their retirement, with the intention of building a house on it when they can raise the money. Is this so criminal? Are they the land speculators the sharks, who have to be attacked? No. They are ordinary people, yet the Government have not yet been able to give us this concession.
The argument that has been used all along is that there is a possibility of evasion. Let us look at this argument. It runs: "Oh, well, this would encourage a property developer to sell off a series of plots of land to the future occupiers and subsequently build houses upon them, and thereby avoid the levy."
This is perfectly true. If this could be achieved on a large scale, which is unlikely, what would be the result? It would be that the levy would not be payable on the building of a series of houses for owner-occupation, that is, those houses would be cheaper. Surely this is the whole intention of the Government? One of the things which they have wanted to do was to cheapen the cost of land and to cheapen house purchase. Here is a great opportunity for them to do so.
At the beginning of this Bill I was hopeful that the Minister would be reasonable about this. We have pressed so many excellent cases upon him that I am beginning to lose heart at this stage, and to doubt whether this excellent case will be accepted by him. Owner-occupiers are receiving one more dollop of discouragement from this Government. Instead of pursuing them with annoyingly complicated taxes, the Government ought to be encouraging them.

1.45 a.m.

Mr. Willey: Until the hon. Gentleman got to the dollop at the end, I was in sympathy with him. He made three points. First, as I understood him, he gave us credit for what we undertook in the White Paper, and Clause 61 imple-

ments that undertaking. He said that it would be a good idea if one could pass on a concessionary price to the owner-occupier. This we do by way of concessionary crownhold. Third, he conceded that, if his Amendment were accepted, there would be an easy way of evasion, the easiest way in the world.
The land would be nominally conveyed to the ultimate house purchaser at a price which evaded the levy. But the hon. Gentleman came to the conclusion that the developer would pass the benefit on to the purchaser of the house. The person who does this deliberately to evade the levy is not the sort of person who is likely to pass it on to the purchaser. He is likely to pocket the profit himself.

Mr. Allason: Would not the levy then be assessable on the initial sale under Case A, the sale of the plot of land to the intended purchaser?

Mr. Willey: Yes, and this fictitious transaction would be at a figure which would not attract levy; that would be the whole purpose of the evasion. It would drive a coach and four through the Bill, and I am sure, having got so far with it, the hon. Gentleman would not wish to destroy the Bill.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Clause 61 along with the whole series from Clause 56 onwards deals with exemptions from the levy. I would like your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on how to proceed. I have a question sent to me by small builders in my constituency which arises from the Clause to which this Amendment is directed but which touches Clause 67 also. I wish to raise with the Minister the anomaly between this Clause which is the subject of the Amendment and another which is not. Will you be lenient in allowing me to raise the question which has beer sent to me by my constituents?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): I should like to hear the hon. Gentleman put the question.

Mr. Griffiths: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Several small builders in West Suffolk have taken the advice of learned counsel in respect of the exemptions from the levy which they seek. In order not to detain the House, I shall refer to the brief which counsel has sent to me on the matter. I do not expect the Minister


to answer now, but it is my duty to put it on the record so that an answer can be given.
The builders concerned are advised that, in order to avoid a levy under Case A, a builder must erect a bungalow or house on the plot of land he owns before he sells it, and, further, that the system whereby the builder sells a plot of land and enters into a building contract to build a bungalow or house is not in itself sufficient to avoid the levy because on the sale of a plot after 5th April, 1967, the builder will be liable to a Case A assessment.
I now give an example on that general point which has arisen in my constituency. Builder A—I prefer not to give his name—purchased 15 acres of land on 1st January, 1966. He obtained planning permission. He starts a project of material development on the land prior to 5th April, 1967. That is his intention. I shall not weary the House with the details. He is laying a road and starting to sell plots, if he can. after 5th April. Being a small builder, he cannot afford to finance the erection of his own bungalows, and it has always been his practice to sell the plot of land to his purchaser and enter into a building agreement when the purchaser has paid four instalments of the erection price.
This builder would appear to be exempted from Case C levy under the Bill as it stands on the ground that he has commenced a project of material development before the first appointed day. On the sale of the first plot, however, he is liable under Case A on the difference between the value of the land as agricultural land and the price he receives for it now when it becomes a building plot. He is entitled, of course, to add to the value of the land without planning permission the cost of providing services which are reflected in the price that he receives for the land.
But when he actually bought the land on 1st January this year he had to pay much more than the agricultural value because it had a potential value for building which he had to pay, and he is therefore faced with a loss because he will have to pay betterment levy. That is the first case which I believe falls under this Section.
The second builder, whom I will call builder B, is a larger concern and he is

able to sell completed buildings. All the other facts could well be the same—indeed they are—but builder B is exempted from the levy because he sells a completed property and does not have to rely on the purchaser paying the purchase price by instalments. The same situation could arise, and in this case it would have a more marked effect, where a builder had owned the land before 23rd September, 1965, when the Government first brought in the Bill.
My question is simply this. I should like to ask the Minister, and I do so with the benefit of counsel's advice, if this is the correct interpretation of the Bill. If it is it would appear that the small builder is being prejudiced as against the big builder. In addition a purchaser would be prejudiced because if he has to buy completed properties, the legal costs which he will have to pay will be greater than if he bought a plot of land and entered into a building agreement.
The suggestion which my constituents make, and which I endorse strongly to the Minister, is that if builders of varying classes are not to be prejudiced by the Bill then a complete exemption from the levy under Case A and under Case C should be available when the provisions of these Sections apply.
I realise that I have put a very complicated issue before the House, but I do not apologise for that because, goodness knows, this is a most complicated Bill.
I ask the Minister if he would kindly examine this case when he comes to read HANSARD tomorrow. Perhaps he will give me some general reflections this evening, but I hope he will be able to give some detailed reassurance that the advice given by counsel to the builders in my constituency is somewhat inaccurate. But if it is true as stated, then a serious prejudice against the small builder as compared with the larger builder is built into the Bill as it stands.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I should like to go back to the Minister's reply to the Amendment. As I understand him, his objection was that this would drive a coach and horses through the levy because builders would convey the land to the ultimate purchaser, build on it and obtain the exemption of the Clause as it then stood.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that the builders, having done this, would themselves take the advantage of the exemption and not pass it on. This was a very interesting argument, but I think an unsound one.
What the right hon. Gentleman was saying was that in this particular case the owner-occupier would find the land provided levy-free but that he would not get the advantage of this because it would be withheld by the builder. This is contrary to our whole experience of other forms of taxation. If the supplier of any goods manages lawfully to get his commodity tax-free it is our universal experience that that commodity sells at a lower price than a similar commodity when subject to tax. The right hon. Gentleman has only got to visit such places as Gibraltar, where duty-free liquor and tobacco are to be obtained, to find that he can gratify any tastes he may have in that direction infinitely more economically than he can in this country. It is not the common experience of taxation that if a commodity otherwise taxed becomes available tax-free, the ultimate purchaser gets no benefit from it. This is not what happens.
Let us follow this argument. The right hon. Gentleman's objection is that he will lose the levy in these cases because this method of avoiding paying will be exploited. But we come back to the ultimate purposes of the Bill. The Bill was brought forward the best part of two years ago on the grounds that it would make housing and land cheaper. Now we have at this stage the right hon. Gentleman objecting to a proposal because it would do just that. This is the reductio ad absurdum of the whole process of the Bill.
We have a Bill introduced under the pretext that it would cheapen houses and prevent the exploitation of home buyers, and at the last stage in this House we have the right hon. Gentleman resisting their exemption from tax because it is an exemption from tax and because he would lose the levy. His objects have, therefore, come a complete circle. We have come from the original good intention of trying to provide housing more cheaply back to providing what he regards as the most efficient way of taxing home ownership.

Mr. Clegg: I hope that the Minister will help us sooner or later with one of these Amendments. Otherwise he will be known as the Adam Adamant of the House of Commons. The only trouble is that the television series is entitled "Adam Adamant Lives", and if the right hon. Gentleman goes on like this we may doubt the latter word.
The Minister somewhat mystified me by his references to concessionary crown-hold. I am glad that this has come up, because I am still wondering, even after the Committee stage, how concessionary crownhold gets first into the hands of the private builder and, having arrived there, to the man in the street. We know that corporations can use it, but I would be grateful if the Minister could make this point a little clearer with regard to just how it will be worked and how it will advantage the man who is buying a house in which to live.

Mr. Eyre: Before my hon. Friend continues with the subject of concessionary crownhold, may I draw his attention to the statement made by the noble Lord Kennet in another place where he said on 17th January:
The Commission will be free to dispose of crownhold to the small builder, and the small builder will be free to dispose of crown-hold to the occupier. What is not intended is that the Commission should so dispose of concessionary crownhold; it will dispose only of crownhold in general, of the normal type." —[OFFICIAL RFPORT. House of Lords, 17th January, 1967; Vol. 279, c. 81–2.]
In other words, there is no question of the small builders getting any benefit from concessionary crownhold. This is contrary to the whole line of propaganda of the right hon. Gentleman.

2.0 a.m.

Mr. Clegg: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, who has done considerable research into this matter. Perhaps the Minister could clear up what seems to put it beyond a peradventure of a doubt that concessionary crownhold cannot possibly come into the sort of exemption we are discussing. That will be a grave disappointment to those hoping to get land more cheaply, because that was the carrot that led people to vote for the right hon. Gentleman's party.
I am beginning to dislike intensely the date, 23rd September, 1965, because, as the Minister and Parliamentary Secretary


made clear, many matters have had to be cleared up since then. There is, in particular, the problem of what planning consent meant, and we have seen the Amendments which resulted from the hesitancy over that. I am convinced that people, who bought land in the interim period, in genuine ignorance and misunderstanding of the provisions of the White Paper and the Bill—particularly the Bill, will suffer financially in a substantial way through no fault of their own. It will not be because they were trying to make anything. Merely because they were carrying out normal transactions in lack of knowledge—and very much lack of definition, small people with building plots will be hard hit.
I hope that the Minister will be more forthcoming about these matters, and give a definite reply to the point about concessionary crownhold.

Mr. Body: I find it very difficult to reconcile the right hon. Gentleman's reasons for opposing the Amendment and the inflammatory speeches we heard not so many hours ago from some of his back benchers. When we listened to the eloquence about land sharks and speculators we were taken back to the election campaign and we had a rehash of a few of the slogans. That was all good stuff, but it has no relevance to the Amendment, which is designed merely to try to streamline the proposal and to lift out of the categories of those who will be penalised people who are very small fish. I therefore hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider this very modest Amendment. He says that if he allows it to go through we shall have a coach and pair driven through the whole Bill. But surely that is not really his view?
He must acknowledge that this is a very simple and modest proposal, which will help small people. No shark, no speculator will be able to gain by it, and if he allows it—so far I do not think that he has allowed anything—we shall at least not have sat through this night for nothing.

Mr. Willey: We made the position on crownhold very clear from the start. One need only look at the White Paper—

Mr. Rossi: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. So that hon. Members

do not miss the important statement which the Minister is about to make, and so that he is adequately supported, may I draw attention to the fact that fewer than 40 Members are present?

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

House counted, and, 40 Members being present—

Mr. Willey: To make the Government's position clear about concessionary crownhold, it is necessary to go no further than the White Paper. In paragraph 24, it says:
The Commission will be able, in appropriate cases, to dispose of land for owner-occupied houses at less than its market price. They will normally do so to bodies which can effectively supervise the assignment of such houses, for example housing associations, cooperative groups and local authorities who are prepared to build houses for sale. Where this is not possible, however, the Commission themselves will have power, with the consent of the Ministers, to provide houses for disposal direct. In such cases the disposal will be on a Crownhold basis and in addition to restrictions on development there will be provisions for control of assignment and recovery of the concessions. Concessionary Crownhold disposals will form part of the general pattern of measures which the Government has in mind to deal with the high cost of housing.
So the position of the Government and the position of the Commission with regard to the disposal of land for concessionary crownhold housing is and always has been quite clear.
To turn to the points raised by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths), he asked for a general comment and an undertaking. Certainly I will look into what he said and reply to him in due course.
Meanwhile, there are three points which I would make. First, the matters which he has raised do not affect the attitude which I take towards the Amendment. Secondly, where a builder has planning permission and begins development, he will not be affected by the levy. Thirdly, when we consider Clause 62, we are concerned with builders who had stocks of land at the date of the White Paper. If they use that land for building, they will not be affected by the levy.

Mr. Graham Page: I would make a plea to the right hon. Gentleman that the Government should take a broad


and generous view of the man who wants to build a house on his own plot. I cannot see the moral difference between the man who owned his plot before 23rd September, 1965, and the man who has bought his plot since then. If it is right to give relief to the man who intends to build his own family house, surely it is right to give it to him whether he owned the plot before the White Paper day or after it. If he sets out to add to the supply of houses by his own efforts in housing his family on his own plot of land, surely the Government can take a broad and generous view and not be niggling over when he purchased the land.
Even if there is the possibility of a loophole or two, by which I mean the possibility of someone buying a plot of land cheap, which I thought was what the Government intended people to do, surely we can overlook it here on the broad principle of relief to the man who builds his family house on his own plot of land.

Mr. Eyre: I have listened to what the Minister has said and cannot refrain from putting to him the record with regard to these concessionary crownhold disposals, because he is still maintaining the same old fairy story. He cannot be allowed to continue to get away with it. Throughout our debates in Committee and subsequently the Parliamentary Secretary has been rather more frank about it, and has said that concessionary crownhold disposals would, in the normal course of events, be available only where the organisation is able to police the restrictions. It is a charming phrase, and it has always been used by the Parliamentary Secretary.
But last month in Birmingham the Minister declared that through the Commission he would make available large areas of land to private developers, eventually for the use of owner-occupiers, by way of concessionary crownhold disposals. We have constantly tried to get him to say how he would do it—how, by Regulations, he would set up the machinery to choose the developers who would have the land and, eventually, the owner-occupiers who would benefit from concession.
Constantly the Minister has avoided doing that, and has repeated his general

statement—as he has tonight. But it cannot be right for the Minister to go on repeating this White Paper claptrap, without being genuine enough to give details of the way in which the disposals will be effected. This matter is of tremendous concern to small builders and to the whole programme of private house development building.
How can the right hon. Gentleman reconcile what he has said with the words I have quoted from the report of a debate in another place, when a Government spokesman made it clear beyond doubt that there will not be these allocations of concessionary crownhold to private developers? What the Minister has said tonight is in utter contradiction to the words of the Government spokesman in another place. I have repeatedly asked the Minister to reply to the question and tell us how he will deal with the situation. Now, only the Prime Minister can be called upon to resolve the conflict between the Ministers. It is of tremendous practical importance that this should be done. The Minister should not continue this general protestation, in contradiction to a Ministerial spokesman in another place, when he is quite unable to produce the Regulations which would provide the only genuine basis to entitle him to continue to make this assertion.
It is of the greatest importance that he should say now what the position is, and resolve the conflict between him and his ministerial colleague—or that he should tell us that the Prime Minister will resolve it.

Amendment to the words so restored to the Bill negatived.

Clause 67.—(PROJECT OF MATERIAL DEVELOPMENT BEGUN BUT NOT COMPLETED BEFORE FIRST APPOINTED DAY.)

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the words so restored to the Bill, in page 70, line 35, at the end to insert:
(4) For the purposes of this section where planning permission (in this subsection called 'the earlier permission') has been granted subject to a condition requiring subsequent approval on any matter, and subsequent thereto a further planning permission (in this subsection called the later permission') has been granted which substantially satisfies the condition in the earlier permission, the later permission shall be deemed to be approval on the


matters reserved in the earlier permission notwithstanding that the later permission is in the form of a grant of planning permission.
This Clause deals with projects of material development begun but not completed before the first appointed day. We know that if we begin a project of material development before the appointed day there is relief from levy. The question is: what project is begun by some act on the land? If there are 20 plots on which 20 houses are to be built, is the digging of a trench on one plot the start of a project of material development for all the 20, or only for the one?
2.15 a.m.
This sort of problem is dealt with in Clause 67 but dealt with by reference to the planning permission under which that project of material development, whatever act it may be, is started. Clause 67(2) refers to
one or more planning permissions in force on the first appointed day".
It begins:
If the existing operations, or some of those operations, are authorised by one or more planning permissions in force on the first appointed day, then for the purposes of this Part of this Act.…
It describes what is the project started by any type of development on the land. It refers to a planning permission in force on a certain date.
One has to turn to the interpretation Clause to see exactly what is meant by planning permission. Clause 99(3) discovers a distinction between outline planning permission and detailed planning permission. Outline planning permission is not itself sufficient as planning permission within Clause 67. If in that outline planning permission, certain development is conditionally allowed, if it still has to be approved at a later date, and if it is approved at a later date, it has a retrospective effect to the date of the outline planning permission.
Suppose that a developer gets outline planning permission in January, 1966. He digs a trench in February, 1966. After the appointed day, those operations which needed further approval of the local authority are duly approved. I understand that permission then dates back to the granting of outline permission so that on the appointed day he had planning permission sufficient for Clause

67. The difficulty is that some local authorities do not deal with it in that way. Having granted outline planning permission saying, "This is subject to our approval of the colour in which he paints the house", or whatever it may be, they do not give an approval at a later date and say, "This is the approval which we gave you under outline planning permission some months ago"; they issue a fresh planning permission. This means that the planning permission under which he is operating may have been given after the appointed day instead of referring back to the original outline planning permission in which conditions were made. This is merely a form of procedure from one local authority to another; one will approve what is done in the original planning permission, another will issue a new permission.
The Amendment provides that the new permission shall be treated as an approval of the original permission, as indeed, in effect, it is. It is adequately described in the Amendment, and it is a purely practical matter which should be put right. One could say, had there been time, long before the Act came into operation, that local authorities must issue planning permissions in such a form in future. One could have said, "If you have given outline planning permission you must not give another, fresh planning permission; you must approve what you have already allowed in outline". But there has not been time to do that, and we have to cope with the position of the local authority which carries on the practice of issuing a new permission for an outline planning permission. The Amendment would avoid the difficulties which will arise out of that to the developer and it would bring the planning permission within Clause 67.

Mr. Willey: The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has raised a point which was previously raised with me. He referred to the practice of some planning authorities, and I accept what he said about that. When I discussed this matter with the National Federation of Building Trade Employers some time ago, I said that the developer could compel the authorities to give approvals rather than new permissions, whatever the form of the application; that the form of the application was irrelevant. Since any cases that might arise will


largely affect large-scale developments, these large developers are likely to be well advised about their rights under planning law. I received no further representations from the National Federation and I had assumed, therefore, that although, as the hon. Gentleman said, there were difficulties, no further difficulties had arisen—although, of course, I would do whatever I could to help if difficulties did arise.

Mr. Graham Page: The representations which I have had have come from the Law Society, which drafted the Amendment, so that the Law Society sees some difficulty here. Could the problem be solved by the right hon. Gentleman sending out a circular to local authorities telling them to issue approvals rather than new planning permissions?

Mr. Willey: I will certainly consider taking that action. I was aware that the Amendment had come from a good source. It was received rather late, but I do not complain about it being a starred Amendment. If the matter had been further pursued with us we might have considered taking some steps in the Bill. However, as far as I know the difficulties which arose are not so acute now. As I said, I will consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
In the short time in which we have had to look into the Amendment we have carefully considered it, but I am advised that it would present certain difficulties in two respects; first, because it would affect other parts of the Bill and, secondly, because it is not satisfactory as it stands. I assure the House that I am aware of this matter and that, if necessary, I am prepared to take further steps to help should difficulty arise.

Mr. Graham Page: With that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment to the words so restored in the Bill, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 99.—(INTERPRETATION.)

Lords Amendment: No. 21, in page 90, line 37, leave out "Land and Natural Resources" and insert "Housing and Local Government."

Mr. Willey: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Would it be convenient to take, with this Amendment, the following Amendments: Nos. 22, 23, 24 and 26?

Mr. Willey: Yes, Sir. The Amendment is designed to bring the Bill in line with the Transfer of Functions Order which is at present before the House.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: We should be given more explanation of the Amendment. After all, this is the right hon. Gentleman's own funeral and he should be a little more decorous about it. We wish to see the final obsequies conducted with a certain dignity. It would be an affectation on my part if I were to indicate great grief at what the right hon. Gentleman has said. As he knows, I have always contended that the creation of his separate Department was an appalling mistake.
The most popular item in the Government party's election manifesto last year was their undertaking to abolish a separate Ministry of Land and Natural Resources. I therefore attend the funeral in a singularly un-funereal spirit, but we should know a little more about this. This Bill was launched by a separate Ministry of Land and Natural Resources and taken through another place with the Ministers in the Bill described as "the appropriate Ministers"—a phrase which one might think questionable. Then, by the use of the vehicle of another place, at the last stage, these wholesale changes in nomenclature were made.
Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us a little about the timing? Is it that the Prime Minister decided that the right hon. Gentleman should be like the bee—having inserted this bitter sting into the body of the nation, he dies?

Mr. Graham Page: I think there is a point of more seriousness than my right hon. Friend has made.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Even more serious?

Mr. Page: Even more serious. Throughout the Bill there was a distinction between the Minister of Land and Natural Resources and the Minister of


Housing and Local Government. We rather rested on that distinction at times when we considered that the Minister of Housing and Local Government is the Minister of planning and the Minister of Land and Natural Resources is not the Minister of planning. There was a certain sort of safeguard to the public between the exercise of directions to the Land Commission and the exercise of planning duties by the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
I understand that by this Amendment the Minister of Housing and Local Government will have power to give directions to the Commissioner in all cases. He is the master of the Land Commission, but at the same time he is the master of planning. What happens when there is some planning appeal by the Commission or in which it is concerned and it has to go to a public inquiry before an inspector of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government? Surely the Minister will be judge, jury and advocate in his own cause.
Previously we had always understood and argued on the basis that the Commission was quite separate from planning. If the Land Commission is to be the adopted child of the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Minister is also the planning lord of all, there will be confusion and lack of safeguard for the public.

Question put and agreed.

Mr. Graham Page: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman being now dead and defunct and no longer the Minister, can he now move the next Amendment?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): It is perfectly in order for him to do so.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 2.—(SPECIAL PROCEDURE FOR COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDERS.)

Lords Amendment: No. 28, in page 98, line 19, at beginning insert:
Except in so far as sub-paras. (3) to (5) of this para. otherwise provide".

2.30 a.m.

Mr. Willey: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I think it would be for the convenience of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to take at the same time Lords Amendment No. 29, in page 98, line 25. at end insert:
() Where the land comprised in such a compulsory purchase order as prepared in draft by the Commission consists of a dwelling-house, and the occupier of the dwelling-house duly objects to the order and that objection is not withdrawn, the last preceding sub-paragraph shall not have effect in relation to that objection.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: indicated assent.

Mr. Willey: These are Amendments to Schedule 2. I am delighted that the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) is still with us, because he was in error earlier in referring to Schedule 2. We are here meeting a point which was raised in the Lords. It was first raised by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), but he did not pursue it by way of Amendment in our proceedings in this House.
Under the shortened procedure there is discretion with the Minister whether to hold an inquiry. I have always given the assurance that when an occupier of a house was affected, no Minister would in those circumstances refuse an inquiry. The point raised by the hon. Member for Crosby, which I give him the credit for raising, was taken again in the Lords and there was a general wish to make this an explicit provision of the Bill.
The two Amendments provide that we will not rely upon the assurance of a Minister on behalf of the Government and that this requirement will be written into the Bill.

Mr. Allason: I did not catch all that the Minister has just said, but I think he told us that these Amendments dealt with the special expedited procedure for compulsory purchase. He certainly told us that it would not be the Minister's intention not to hold a public inquiry or hearing. He must have meant this in reference to a dwellinghouse.

Mr. Willey: indicated assent.

Mr. Allason: Throughout the passage of the Bill we have complained about the absence of a right to a public inquiry or hearing, particularly in the case of a householder. It was appalling that the occupier of a house should have no right


of appeal and had to rely entirely on the Minister's discretion as to whether there was any right of a public inquiry or hearing.
It certainly appeared from the terms of the Bill that a person could be turned out of his home at 28 days' notice on receipt of a certificate from the Land Commission and without any chance of a hearing save by the good graces of the Minister. Lords Amendment No. 29 exempts a dwellinghouse from that procedure.
Once again the other place has more aptly judged public opinion, which was rightly indignant at the apparent affront to reasonable behaviour by the State. It is not right that people should have to rely on the good intentions of a Minister as expressed in Committee. They much prefer to see this right written into the statute. We rejoice, therefore, that at last the Government have seen sense about a man's home, although he can still be turned out of his business on the same terms at 28 days' notice upon receipt of a certificate from the Land Commission.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to say that he was glad I was still here. I am not sure, in view of Lords Amendment No. 21, whether I can reciprocate, because I think he is the ex-Minister; but he did say, apart from that preliminary courtesy, that the reason for his pleasure at my presence was that I had been wrong on an earlier Amendment in respect of the Schedule. He did not, however, specify in what respect I had been wrong. It was a curious omission which no doubt he will now take the opportunity to rectify. It is rather unusual to say another Member has been wrong without explaning in what respect.
The only other comment I would make at this stage is that I am indeed glad that at this last stage the right hon. Gentleman is agreeing to go some way to meet some of the very serious objections which many of us have urged to the provisions of the Schedule. It is indeed shocking that the denial of a statutory right of a person likely to be deprived of his land to have a public inquiry should have been left to this stage,

and certainly shocking that it should have been carried thus far. It is gratifying to those of us who over the last eighteen months have pressed for this that at this stage this point has been thus far met. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough now to explain my error.

Mr. Rossi: Before the Minister replies may I put one other suggestion about this Lords Amendment. Where it says that the Minister
shall require the Commission to make the order with a modification so as to exclude the dwelling-house".
I wonder if some thought could be given to adding at some stage the words "and curtilage". Surely it is not the intention of the Minister just to take the area on which the building happens to be, but some of the surrounding land should also be included? I wonder whether he would bear that matter in mind.

Mr. Willey: I will bear it in mind, as far as one can administratively. I am not seeking to amend the Lords Amendment. I have in mind the point the hon. Member is making, certainly.
I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I understood him earlier in our discussion to be talking on the assumption that this provision was not being made.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think the right hon. Gentleman has telescoped my argument with that of one of my hon. Friends. I did not make that point at all. I was very conscious of this Lords Amendment, which is one of the most clear aspects of them all. But I accept the apology.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 31, in page 103, leave out Schedules 4 to 13.

Question proposed, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.—[Mr. Willey.]

Mr. Percival: I have not had the opportunity to listen to the whole of the debates which have been going since yesterday afternoon, but I have heard a great deal of them. Many of the speeches have been very erudite and many of the points have been highly technical. My observations must necessarily be on a


much more mundane level and in much more general terms, because as a mere lawyer I find the provisions of these Schedules so abstruse that there are not all that many of them about which I feel sufficient certainty to enter into any technical discussion. If I had Aladdin's lamp and just one wish left, of course the first wish I would express would be that these Schedules, the whole of them, and the Bill to which they are attached, and the Government who are perpetrating the outrage of pushing all of them through the House, should disappear into thin air, but if for any reason, such as a majority, I could not have that wish gratified, then I should use it for this purpose. My request would be that I should be told how many of those who propose to vote for these Schedules have read them, how many who have read them have understood them, and how many different views are held by those who have read them and think that they understand them. I can guess that the answers to all three are—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. That is not related to the substance of the Schedules and I am afraid that the hon. and learned Member is out of order.

Mr. Percival: I shall relate this to the Schedules, if you will allow me to complete my sentence, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My reason for endeavouring to persuade the House that these Schedules should not be returned to the Bill is basically that they are unintelligible. I was merely introducing myself to the subject and perhaps at this late hour in the morning endeavouring to put a point of view which I know to have been expressed by others. I do not mind how many others have expressed it; I want to make my protest. I shall endeavour to put it a slightly different way for the sake of variety.
I was dealing with how many different interpretations, how many different views as to their meaning, might be held by those who have read and thought to understand the Schedules. I suggest that that is directly related to whether they should be returned to the Bill. I was about to say that my experience among technicians in the law, those specialised in this subject, is that one gets almost as many different interpretations of these

Schedules as the number of people one asks about them. Certainly on some parts of them even the most highly expert technicians take different views as to what the meanings are. It is a very serious consideration when one is passing legislation and that even the highly expert differ in their views as to the interpretation, surely the House should think very carefully before returning them to the Bill.
I said that I would like to know how many people purported to understand them. The relevance of that is that we ought not to pass legislation unless we understand what it is intended to do. My guess would be that if we were to be honest with ourselves the percentage of hon. Members who, having read these Schedules—and that eliminates a lot—could put their hands on their hearts and say that they understood them would be very small.
The relevance of the number of people who have read them is this: I have felt, and I am not sure that I do not still feel, that the most powerful and persuasive speech which one could make against what is proposed is to read the Schedules from start to finish. I cannot believe that if one did that there would be anyone left to vote for them—I do not believe that there would be anybody left to vote for them or anything else. To put everybody's mind at rest, attractive though that possibility is and splendid as that argument would be and although we now have plenty of time and everybody who is here is here because he is interested in the subject, I say at once that I shall resist that temptation, and I shall take it rather more shortly than that.
2.45 a.m.
But it is worth having a look at one little part of one Schedule, which I will use on its own to illustrate my point. I looked at Schedule 4 on page 105. I appreciate that I should be out of order if I were to say much about Clauses 27 to 85 but since what these Clauses mean, or how they are to be applied or whether they are good or bad can only be decided by looking at their parents, as it were, it may be permissible to do just that.
In Schedule 4, paragraphs 10 and those following relate back to Clause 30(3) and


(4). I shall not read these, for that might be out of order. But I draw attention to the fact that subsection (3), whilst in itself it sets out a number of values which have to be ascertained, refers to Schedule 4 to show how they are to be ascertained. On the face of it, although subsections (3) and (4) may not look too bad—there may even be some who find them not too easy to follow—the situation really begins to get complicated when one follows up the reference in subsection (3) to Schedule 4 and looks up the relevant passages.
To assist those failing to follow the point, paragraph 11 of Schedule 4 is where one has to start in doing one's calculations, which one is required to do under Clause 36. Paragraph 11 says:
(1) There shall first be ascertained what immediately before the disposition is the value of the chargeable interest, calculated in accordance with Schedule 6 to this Act and on the assumption that planning permission—
(a) would be granted for any development of the relevant land which does not constitute material development"—
whatever that means—
but
(b) would not be granted for any development of that land which constitutes material development.
(2) The value of the chargeable interest, calculated as mentioned in the preceding subparagraph, is in this Part of this Schedule referred to as the current use value of the chargeable interest.
Paragraph 12 says:
(1) There shall also be ascertained what, immediately after the disposition, is the value of such prospective right as the grantor then has to possession of the relevant land at the end of the tenancy.
As a rest from reading, I will interpolate one or two comments. If anyone can follow all that—and perhaps some people are clever enough to do so—one has to look at Schedule 6, which covers nine pages, and in the little bit that I have read there are already two imponderables. The first is as to what material development is and the second is the prospective right which the grantor
…then has to possession of the relevant land at the end of the tenancy.
But let us go on. Paragraph 12 goes on:
(2) For the purpose of ascertaining that value it shall be assumed that the relevant land will at the end of the tenancy be in the state in which it was immediately before the disposition.

(3) The value referred to in sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph is in this Part of the Schedule referred to as the reversionary value of the chargeable interest.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I find it difficult to see the argument that the hon. and learned Gentleman is adducing for not accepting the Amendment. So far he has merely read out relevant parts of the Schedule without argument. I must ask him to adduce an argument or resume his seat.

Mr. Percival: That is what I propose to do. I have already said that the best argument against this Schedule is that it is so appalling that the House ought not to pass it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must press the hon. and learned Gentleman. He is now getting rather repetitious. He has advanced this argument on at least four separate occasions. The hon. and learned Gentleman must address himself more to the question.

Mr. Percival: I have advanced the argument four times, as a respectful comment on your questions as to the relevance of it. So far I have read about 15 lines out of goodness knows how many pages, and I was proposing to confine myself to the next two paragraphs. Perhaps I might ask hon. Members to read them to themselves. They continue in the same vein as the paragraphs that I have read out, and I did so so that I may make this comment: what a shocking lot of mumbo-jumbo the whole lot is.
Supposing all had an ascertainable meaning, who could ascertain it? I am prepared to accept that there are some people who are so clever that they can find an ascertainable meaning to all of this. But how many? This is a measure which may have very serious consequences for every property owner, however small his holding may be. How many of them would be able to make head or tail of this, half of which I have read out and half of which I referred to? I picked as a short example part of a Schedule which is tolerably clear compared to some of the others because I did not want to confuse the House.
Here is one comparatively simple piece which I suggest to the House would be, to the average citizen, nothing more than a lot of mumbo-jumbo. It might be expected that lawyers, solicitors and


barristers would welcome this sort of thing, because these are the people to whom the citizens will have to go to find out their rights. They will have no chance of understanding this and they will have no choice but to go to the professional for advice, for which they will have to pay. It might be expected that this would be welcomed by those to whom this will be a tremendous source of income, but it is not welcomed by them any more than it is by anyone else. I can only speak for the lawyers, and it is deplored by the majority of them for the simple but very good reason that it creates such an appalling mess, muddle and mass of uncertainty.
It was the proud and justifiable boast of this country until quite recently that a man could know the law and that he was free to do what he pleased within the law. Neither of these sayings are true now. I realise that I shall be out of order in developing the second part of this, although the temptation to do so is almost irresistible. I must therefore confine myself to the first part, that it was once the boast that an Englishman could know the law. The way things have been going in the last two years not even the lawyers could help the citizen if there is any difficulty, or can be sure that they know it any longer. This is a serious inroad into something that really matters, and no other Measure makes a bigger inroad than this Bill.
That is true particularly of the Schedules, and this of itself is a sufficient reason to throw the whole lot overboard and start again. Now that Clauses 27 to 85 have been restored, there must be some Schedules because those Clauses refer to them, but it is in the Schedules that most of the detailed working out is to be found and they are, therefore, of immense importance. Even at this stage, the Schedules as they now stand should be taken out. They are complicated beyond belief and beyond all necessity. They introduce a fearful mess and muddle and mass of uncertainty.
I am a great optimist, but I am not so optimistic as to think that the Government will accede to heart-felt plea, but the House and the country must realise what the consequences will be. When people begin to see the effects of the Bill and the Schedules and to feel them, which a great many will soon do,

let them not blame the law. The blame lies on this Government and on this Government alone.

Mr. Clegg: I support the serious and substantial attack my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) has made on the incomprehensibility of the Schedules. On that ground alone, they should be consigned to oblivion, as the other place wished to do. My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) tried to raise this point earlier, but Mr. Speaker ruled him out of order because the Clauses and not the Schedules were then under debate.
I am intrigued by Schedule 8 paragraph 18. If the Minister can let me know on a half sheet of foolscap what it means, I may be persuaded to drop my opposition to the Schedule. Paragraph 18(1) reads:
In this Part of this Schedule 'the increase (if any) in the current use value of the chargeable interest', in relation to a taxable disposal, means the amount (if any) by which the value of the chargeable interest immediately before that disposal, calculated on the assumption specified in sub-paragraph (3) of this paragraph, exceeded the value of that interest as the relevant earlier time, calculated on the like assumption.

Mr. Percival: Will my hon. Friend kindly read it again?

Mr. Clegg: I could not stand the strain. I am sure that, if he had been here now, my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil would have used that paragraph to illustrate his argument, no doubt, with considerable wit.
The fundamental criticism is that people cannot know and understand their rights under legislation of this kind. The Parliamentary Secretary has said that, in many ways, the difficulty of the wording is there not to persecute the citizen but to protect him. It is a strange feature of our civilisation that we should be driven to this sort of thing. If the citizen cannot understand what Ministers have put into the Bill to protect his rights, it is not of much value to him.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 4.—(GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR ASCERTAINING FACTORS RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT OF LEVY.)

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the words so restored


to the Bill, in page 113, line 24, to leave out from 'incurred' to the end of line 25.
3.0 a.m.
This is an Amendment to that part of the Schedule which is headed "Expenditure on Improvements and Ancillary Rights." The position, as I understand it, is that the net development value on which levy is assessed is calculated by finding the difference between the base value, which is eleven-tenths of current use value, and the market value. But if one has expended something in improving the land then one can deduct that expenditure from the difference between base value and market value and thereby reduce the net development value.
But under paragraph 42 on page 113, the expenditure which can be set against the net development value, or set against the difference between base value and market value in order to find the net development value, must be expenditure made by the chargeable owner or a predecessor. In short it must be made by the owner of the land or possibly by the person who is going to develop the land.
The case has been put to me by a well known firm in Kent whose land is being levelled and filled with ash—I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman knows the case—by the Central Electricity Board. This is perhaps a rather elaborate example, and I would rather give a much simpler one.
I recollect that quite recently my son, who takes scouts on holidays, told me the story of having got his scouts camped on rather uneven ground and one typical London scout was complaining bitterly about the bumps in the land. One of the others, who was a more cheerful soul, told this one to go to sleep and said: "Where there's 'umps there's 'ollows." This is the example I want to use in complaining that this Schedule is unfair.
Let us suppose that there are two adjoining plots, one with 'umps and one with 'ollows, and the gentleman with the hump on his land wishes to level it and approaches his neighbour and says "May I put the earth from the hump on my land into the hollow on yours and we shall both be nicely levelled out?"
Perhaps at his own expense the one with the hump transfers the earth to the one with the hollow. This improves the land of the man who has the hollow. Now had he spent money on buying that earth from somewhere and filling up the hollow he could have deducted that expenditure from the difference between base value and market value and thereby have reduced the net development value on which he pays the levy. But because he himself has spent no money, and it was his neighbour who expended the money in carting the earth from A to B, this expenditure cannot be taken into account in the improvement of the land which previously had the hollow.
Let us take another example, of a gift between members of a family which improves land, a builder who improves his son's house or something of that sort. If the expenditure has not been made by the chargeable owner or his predecessor, the previous owner of the land, then it cannot be taken into account.
This might be said to be fair because the man has not spent the money himself, but surely the principle of the levy is that it is assessed on the increment in value due to the actions of the community. This has been said again and again by the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary, and in the White Papers which have been issued. The whole basis of the levy is that a net development value has been created by the actions of the community. In the cases which I have given, it is not the community who have improved the property. It is the neighbour or the relative. Merely because the owner of the property has not had to put his hand in his pocket and find the money, he is unable to take that into account when his levy is assessed.
If we omitted these words in line 24 on page 113—
…by the chargeable owner or a predecessor
—we would be left with the words:
…any expenditure which has, on or after 1st July. 1948, but before the relevant date, been incurred…
It then goes on with several sub-paragraphs which restrict the application of the provision to the land in question; it is expenditure on the carrying out of work on the land, so it is limited to that extent. Unfortunately, it is limited by the existing words to expenditure by the


owner of the land himself. Therefore, the Land Commission gets a benefit out of an expenditure made by—to take my examples—the neighbour or the relative. The Land Commission gets the benefit—and so does the Exchequer eventually—merely because of these words which we seek to delete and not because of the basic principle of the Bill that levy should be charged on some increment in value due to the action of the community.

Mr. Skeffington: If the hon. Gentleman had in mind providing relief for the sort of "humps and hollows" case that he mentioned, he might have thought of putting down a rather different Amendment. The Amendment which has been moved would enormously widen the scope of this Schedule and make it both meaningless and extremely unfair.
The Government have taken the view —this has been generally acceded to by everybody—that where the chargeable owner or his predecessor has actually expended something upon an improvement, it is proper that it should be taken into calculation in relation to base value. But the Amendment is so wide that if a school were built which was held, as no doubt it would be, to affect the development value, then the whole of the cost of the school would fall within the provisions of paragraph 42(a). As far as I can see, virtually any expenditure anywhere which could remotely be said to affect the land could be brought into the calculations. So one would be providing for a levy to be collected on betterment value on the one hand, and providing that the very values provided by the community on the other hand should completely destroy the development value which was levied. This would make nonsense.
The kind of example which the hon. Gentleman gave certainly might be included within this Amendment, but his Amendment opens the door so wide that it could not be accepted by any Government. The only practical method is to take into account expenditure which the predecessor in title or chargeable owner has incurred himself. That is the fair and practical thing to do. Beyond that, we get into a kind of fairyland which does not match up with reality. If the Amendment is pressed I shall have to ask my hon. Friends to vote against it.

Amendment to the words so restored in the Bill negatived.

Mr. Willey: I beg to move as an Amendment to the words so restored to the Bill, in page 113, line 34, to leave out '21st' and insert '29th'.
As far as I remember, when the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) moved an Amendment on Report he was so surprised that I accepted it that he did not put down consequential Amendments. He called my attention to one point which I dealt with by manuscript Amendment. This Amendment concerns a date we missed.

Mr. Graham Page: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for spotting this. My recollection is that his remark on the previous occasion was that he thought that I was asleep, and found that I was not when I called his attention to the point which he dealt with by the manuscript Amendment. No doubt we were both asleep when we missed this date.

Mr. Body: May I draw your attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the fact that there are not 40 Members present?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There has been a count of the House fairly recently and I think that we should proceed.

Mr. Body: I thought that it was more than an hour ago, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I was not in the Chair at the time. I was under the impression that it was within the hour, but I am assured that that is not so.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

House counted, and 40 Members being present—

Amendment to the words so restored to the Bill agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 5.—(BASE VALUE DERIVED FROM PREVIOUS TRANSACTION.)

Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move as an Amendment to the words so restored to the Bill, in page 118, line 13, at the end to insert:
(4) Regulations made for the purposes of this Schedule may provide that, in such circumstances as may be specified in the regulations and subject to such exceptions and modifications as may be so specified, the preceding


provisions of this paragraph shall have effect in relation to a previous chargeable act or event which fell within Case F and consisted of—

(a) such a disposition as is mentioned in subsection (3) of section 35 of this Act, or
(b) the accrual of such a right to compensation as is mentioned in subsection (5) of that section,
as those provisions have effect in relation to a chargeable act or event to which this paragraph applies.
It might be for the convenience of the House to consider with it the following Amendment, in page 172, line 24, at the end to insert:

PART IV

CREDIT CARRIED FORWARD FROM CASE F

15. Regulations made for the purposes of this Schedule may provide that, in such circumstances as may be specified in the regulations and subject to such exceptions and modifications as may be so specified, the provisions of Parts I to III of this Schedule shall have effect in relation to a previous chargeable act or event which fell within Case F and consisted of—

(a) such a disposition as is mentioned in subsection (3) of section 35 of this Act, or
(b) the accrual of such a right to compensation as is mentioned in subsection (5) of that section,
as those provisions have effect in relation to a previous chargeable act or event which fell within Case D or Case E.

3.15 a.m.

The House may remember that, when the Bill was at the Report stage on 26th October, my right hon. Friend moved a new Clause which was in fulfilment of a promise which he had made in Committee on 19th July. That was Clause 35 in its present form, whereby my right hon. Friend said that the scope of the regulation making power would be limited to the circumstances in which Case F was to apply. He carried out the undertaking given in Committee, and the new Clause was moved and accepted by the House. Hon. Members opposite said that it met their wishes.

As soon as that happened, my right hon. Friend began to prepare the regulations which he had undertaken to bring forward, so that they might be available at the earliest possible moment. In drafting regulations, however, it became obvious that, in Case F, certain credits which would be available in Cases D and E and which might in similar circumstances arise in Case F were not catered

for and could not be in the regulations if the new Clause which we had introduced were in its present form. In the normal course of events, it would have been possible to have made this Amendment in another place, but that could not be done because a matter of privilege arose. So this is the first opportunity that we have had to complete the undertaking given in respect of Case F in July.

Perhaps I might explain the circumstances whereby, largely because of legal grounds or grounds of negotiation, almost by chance, certain categories of transactions might fall to be dealt with under Case F, rather than Case D or Case E. If that were so, the chargeable owner or other person entitled to benefit would not get the advantages which he otherwise would get if these transactions took place under Case D or Case E.

I can probably explain this best by way of an example. One can imagine an electricity authority wishing to take lines over certain ground. Technically, there are various ways in which that can be done, but they are broadly categorised as wayleaves, and there are various forms in which permission can be given. The authority could take an easement. In that event, it would fall to be dealt with under Case E. Alternatively, it could negotiate a licence. Clearly, that would fall within subsection (3) of Clause 35 and would be Case F. Thirdly, it could have the lines under compulsory rights and pay compensation for depreciation. Again, that would fall within subsection (5) and would be Case F.

Expenditure would arise in Case E where the authority had created an easement. In those circumstances, it would have been possible for a certain part of the credit which might arise in such a transaction to be held in reserve under Schedule 11 for a subsequent transaction.

It is true that by paragraph 5 of Schedule 5 a Schedule 5 basis cannot be adopted when the chargeable event has already taken place before the occasion, but in those circumstances the credit can be held in reserve and used in a subsequent transaction. As the Bill is drafted it would be impossible in Case F to make this credit available. The Amendments provide equity of treatment, where it is more convenient to get this wayleave by one method or another, by providing for


the credit to be available for subsequent transactions in Case F as in Cases E and D. In those circumstances I hope that the House will take the view that the Government have been fair and reasonable in this matter and will agree to the Amendments.

Mr. Graham Page: When can we expect the Regulations? Are they terribly involved, so that we shall have to study them carefully, or can the Minister produce them in something better than unintelligible language of the Schedules? I hope that they will be intelligible, and that we shall be able to see them soon.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that this was the first opportunity the Government had had to introduce the Amendments. That may be so from the point of view of the programme which the Government set themselves on the Bill, but it all arose because Case F originally was a sort of unknown dustbin; it could have been anything. It was only because of pressure by the Opposition that Case F was made more specific in the new Clause 35. It was in the Government's hands before that to give us a specific Clause 35 and tell us about Case F. They could have given us the Amendment earlier, or have drafted the Bill in a better way.
It is a false excuse to say that this is the first opportunity. The Government could have so arranged matters that this sort of thing came before the House at an earlier stage—not in the morning but in an earlier stage of our discussions on the Bill.

Mr. Clegg: I want to refer to the Amendment in page 172. Previously, that led me to think that I was having a nightmare and I confess that the wording still gives me that feeling. But I am glad to have the explanation of the Minister. I hope he will try to reply to my hon. Friend's point. The Amendment seems to be generally for the benefit of individuals.

Mr. Skeffington: The Regulations are well advanced and a model of clarity.

Amendment to the words so restored to the Bill agreed to.

Mr. Clegg: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the words so restored to

the Bill, in page 120, line 6, to leave out '1st August 1966' and to insert '23rd September 1965'.
The object of this Amendment is to be a little like Oliver Twist and ask for more. The Minister provided a valuable concession when he introduced this provision for builders buying after 1st August, 1966. We now seek to extend the concession to the intervening period, from the publication of the White Paper to the first appointed day. I would not have moved the Amendment if I had thought that in that intervening period there had been widespread attempts to avoid the payment of the levy. I am sure that that was in the Minister's mind when both dates were inserted; he did not want people to take advantage of it.
But so difficult has been the Bill to understand and so long has it taken for the conclusions as to what the Bill means to be grasped, and to leak through to the public before they could even try to evade it—it may be that some people have been honest because they have not had the chance to be otherwise—and so great has been the confusion about what planning permission means, that practically no one has been cunning enough to outwit the Minister who, hiding behind a smokescreen of words, has prevented them from seeing decent and proper ways of evading the levy. I suggest that he would be doing a great service to getting private building cracking again if he accepted the Amendment. We must look at it against the background of a falling output in the private building sector. If this Amendment would help to get more houses coming forward for development, it would be well worthwhile and the Minister would lose hardly anything.

Mr. Willey: The hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) says that it was a valuable concession. I think that it is appreciated by builders, and we have had no representations by the National Federation or any of the other organisations suggesting that the step proposed by the Amendment should be taken.
The step which we took particularly had in mind the difficulties which there might be in bringing land forward during the latter part of the interim period. I should have thought that hon. Members would have had sympathy with the view that we should bring the interim period


to a speedy close. The concession sought to deal with small builders who had small plots of land, who wish to obtain land for early development and who might feel that it was not coming on to the market because of the difficulty of deciding who bears the levy. The concession has served that purpose and I see no reason to extend it.

Mr. Eyre: My hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde is right in saying that no one has tried to take advantage of this dead period. I know of no attempt to produce evasive transactions during that time. The Minister would lose nothing by making the change and there would be one particular advantage. The professional people have their heads spinning with the various important dates in the Bill—there have been a number of complaints about that—and this change would be in the interests of simplicity in a complex subject. There would be an advantage in getting rid of an extra date. I assure the Minister that there would be no improper gain to anybody.

Mr. Graham Page: May I also urge the Minister to make this change? My recollection about the fixing of the date is that it was decided at a time when the right hon. Gentleman had in mind that the supply of land might dry up because people were frightened about what was happening under the Bill. It was fixed arbitrarily at the time because of a fear that there would be a shortage of land coming forward. The great difficulty is to try to remember the several dates.
3.30 a.m.
We start with 1st April, 1948, which is a date well known to most of us, but not necessary to the layman, and then go on to 23rd December, 1965, the White Paper date. The next date we have to remember is 1st August, 1966, followed by either 21st or 29th December, 1965, which we discussed on an earlier Amendment. We go on to try to remember the appointed day, 6th April, 1967, and finally we must keep in mind a date six months ahead of that. If that exercise is not a strain on the memory, it is certainly making a complicated Bill even more complex. I do not see the necessity of bringing in the date 1st August, 1966,

particularly since we could have kept to the date 23rd September, 1965.

Amendment to the words so restored to the Bill negatived.

Schedule 6.— (SUPPLEMENTARY PROVI- SIONS RELATING TO SCHEDULES 4 AND 5.)

Amendments made to the words so restored to the Bill: In page 127, line 33, after first "of", insert "paragraph 7 or paragraph 8 or".

In page 128, line 26, leave out "authorises the carrying out of" and insert "relates to the land comprised in".

In line 45, leave out "authorised the carrying out of" and insert "related to the land comprised in".—[Mr. Skeffington.]

Mr. Willey: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the words so restored to the Bill, in page 134, line 33, at the end to insert:

Allowance for costs of valuation or apportionment

19.—(1) For the purpose of assessing levy in respect of a chargeable act or event—

(a) if it falls within Case A or Case C. the market value of the relevant interest (ascertained apart from this paragraph), or
(b) if it consists of a disposition falling within Case B, Case E or Case F, the amount of the consideration for the disposition (ascertained apart from this paragraph), or
(c) if it consists of the accrual of a right to compensation falling within Case D or Case F, the amount of the compensation (ascertained apart from this paragraph),
shall be reduced by the amount of any costs to which this paragraph applies.

(2) In relation to a chargeable act or event, this paragraph applies to any costs which are reasonably incurred by an appropriate person in connection with that act or event and are costs so incurred in making any valuation or apportionment required for the purposes of the computation under the relevant Schedules.

(3) in this paragraph 'appropriate person', in relation to a chargeable act or event, means a person who, if—

(a) a notice of assessment of levy has been or were to be served in respect of it, and
(b) that notice resulted in an operative assessment of levy,
would be liable to pay levy in respect of that chargeable act or event.

It might be convenient for the House to discuss at the same time the proposed Amendment to the words so restored to the Bill in page 173, line 47.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If that is convenient to the House.

Mr. Willey: These are Government Amendments which permit the costs incurred in the making of valuations required in the computation of the levy to be set off in the market value or compensation, as the case may be. We have followed the precedent of the Finance Act, 1965, and the Amendment to page 173, line 44, is consequential and is designed to bring the provisions relating to death, bankruptcy and winding up into line with this new provision.

Mr. Rossi: Because of the lateness of the hour I may not be thinking clearly. What is the significance of deleting the words from line 47 to line 50 on page 173 and incorporating, by reference, paragraph 19, which is being brought into page 134, line 33. The deleting Amendment seems to relate to costs incurred by a person concerned in having the levy assessed, yet that is precisely what the new paragraph 19 appears to do. In other words, what is the significance of deleting three lines and adding 13? This will have quite an effect on the levy, because costs of this kind will be pretty substantial. Those who will have to work in advising on these matters will not do it for nothing and the citizen will have to pay through the nose in operating this Measure.

Mr. Eyre: Of course, I am very glad that the Minister has introduced this Amendment even at this late stage, but is the purpose of the allowance to be limited absolutely to the costs of valuation or apportionment? The wording in subparagraph (2) appears to be rather wider:
any costs which are reasonably incurred by an appropriate person in connection with that act or event.
Is the intention to limit the provision absolutely to valuation costs? Of course, if that were so it would be an improvement on the terribly unfair situation, but it could well be that professional fees other than those for valuation could be incurred leading to the valuation. If so, those extra costs would not be accountancy costs and there would be an unfair restriction. Will the Minister assure us that the purport of the provision is wide enough to cover all professional costs properly incurred in the calculation of this charge?

Mr. Willey: We followed precedent in this. The provision we are making has followed discussions with the professions.
I must say in answer to the hon. Member for Hornsey, that this is a bit thick. I do not know what he is endeavouring to do, whether he is threatening that the professions will extort money from their clients. We are making a provision which I think on reflection is a proper provision to make. I say at once that I believe the professions will give the best possible advice to their clients and there will be no question at all of using this as a means of extortion from the clients. It would be quite improper to suggest that.
The hon. Member may have been making his remarks facetiously, but one should not import such a suggestion when we know that the professions will behave properly and these are costs which on reflection we think can be brought in in this way.

Mr. Rossi: Of course I am not suggesting that any of the professions would extort on a matter of this kind. That is the last thing I would suggest. All I say is that a tremendous burden of work is being placed on the professions in interpreting these Schedules, advising their clients, making these calculations. The work is of such a complicated and difficult nature that it follows necessarily that the reasonable fee which they will have to charge for the work placed upon them is bound to be a high one. It is bound to be high.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has made his speech. At this stage he must be brief in his intervention.

Mr. Rossi: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but this is a new paragraph which is being introduced and I am commenting on it in regard to what the Minister said about the professions and advantage being taken of it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has spoken already on this Amendment.

Mr. Graham Page: The Minister has not answered the question put to him from this side of the House about the costs which are covered by the Clause. He said that he has used precedent. There is no precedent for the Land Commission, thank heaven, and, therefore,


we are cutting entirely new ground and there is a new type of work to be done.
Confusion arises from the fact that this new Clause has come to us at this very last moment. It shocks me that none of us had spotted before, and even I had not noticed—and here I declare an interest as possibly having to charge clients costs in helping them over these matters—that as the Bill stood, these costs could not be set off against market value.
We now have the Clause before us. It is headed
Allowance for costs of valuation or apportionment".
One immediately thinks of a valuer and the costs of valuation. Can the Minister give a complete assurance that subsection (2), which refers to
any costs which are reasonably incurred by an appropriate person in connection with the act or event".
include legal and accountancy fees? Am I to consider myself, in my professional capacity, an "appropriate person"? I hope so. I hope that both legal and accountancy costs, as well as the valuer's costs, will be included, but in view of the title of the Clause this is not clear.

Mr. Farr: Before the Minister replies, I would like to reinforce the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) which answers the specific remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre).
I am, perhaps, a little less sensitive than some of my colleagues on the subject of fees charged by valuers, architects, accountants and solicitors, because I have no declared interest in any of those professions except to pay them frequently and repeatedly. I know that their existing legitimate scale charges are very heavy. One hesitates to think what they will be if the Clause is incorporated in the Bill without any specific definition from the Minister about whether such heavy fees, legally incurred in connection with an assessment of levy, are subject to recompense by the Land Commission. This is an important point. The Clause is obviously full of good intentions but lacks clarification, and we would like the Minister to say another word or two about it.

Mr. Willey: All I can say is that I have followed precedent and that this provision will be subject to the same limitation as the precedent for it.

Amendment to the words so restored in the Bill agreed to.

Schedule 11.—(CREDIT CARRIED FORWARD FROM PREVIOUS CHARGEABLE ACT OR EVENT.)

Amendment made to the words so restored to the Bill: In page 172, line 24, at end insert:

PART IV

CREDIT CARRIED FORWARD FROM CASE F

15. Regulations made for the purposes of this Schedule may provide that, in such circumstances as may be specified in the regulations and subject to such exceptions and modifications as may be so specified, the provisions of Parts I to III of this Schedule shall have effect in relation to a previous chargeable act or event which fell within Case F and consisted Of—

(a) such a disposition as is mentioned in subsection (3) of section 35 of this Act, or
(b) the accrual of such a right to compensation as is mentioned in subsection (5) of that section.
as those provisions have effect in relation to a previous chargeable act or event which fell within Case D or Case E.—[Mr. Willey.]

Schedule 12.—(DEATH, BANKRUPTCY, WINDING UP AND FLOATING CHARGES.)

Amendment made to the words so restored to the Bill: In page 173, line 47, leave out from 'him' to end of line 50 and insert:
'which, in relation to the chargeable act or event in question, are costs to which paragraph 19 of Schedule 6 to this Act applies'.—[Mr. Willey.]

Schedule 13.—(SPECIAL PROVISIONS AS TO LEVY IN CERTAIN CASES.)

Mr. Willey: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the words so restored to the Bill, in page 180, line 17, to leave out 'either'.
I think that it would meet the convenience of the House to take with this Amendment the following Amendment, in line 19.

Mr. Speaker: If the House does not object, so be it.

3.45 a.m.

Mr. Willey: This is a case in which we are dealing with groups of companies. Here is a case in which I got into difficulties by following precedent. I followed the Finance Act, 1965, but I did not


take the opportunity of bringing the provisions of the Bill into line with an amendment made by the Finance Act, 1966. I did not take that step because I did not think there would be a case arising within the scope of this Amendment. It was pointed out in another place that a similar Amendment was required here. The Government asked for evidence of that requirement. The evidence was produced. Therefore, I ask the House to accept this Amendment.

Mr. Graham Page: I must admit that when I and a few of my hon. Friends came to draft Amendments for this stage we drafted this Amendment and then found that the right hon. Gentleman already had it on the Paper. It might, perhaps, have been a pleasant closing to these proceedings had I known this was going to be the last Amendment on the Paper and had added my name to the right hon. Gentleman's, but, at any rate, we welcome this Amendment and we are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for moving it.

Amendment to the words so restored in the Bill agreed to.

Further Amendment made to the words so restored to the Bill: In page 180, line 19, after 'Ireland', insert:
'a company which is constituted under any Act, Royal Charter or Letters Patent or is formed under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom'.—[Mr. Willey.]
Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their Amendments to the Bill:—Mr. Willey, Mr. Skeffington, Mr. Allason, Mr. Graham Page and Dr. Mabon:—Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. Willey]: —To withdraw immediately.

Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments reported and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Select Committee nominated:— Mr. Norman Atkinson, Mr. Tam Dalyell, Mr. Ernest Davies, Mr. David Ginsburg, Mr. Stephen Hastings, Mr. Robert L. Howarth, Sir Harry Legge-Bourke, Mr. Eric Lubbock, Mr. Airey Neave, Sir Ian Orr-Ewing, Dr. David Owen, Mr. Arthur Palmer, Mr. Brian Parkyn, and Mr. David Price.—[Mr. Lawson.]

WATER SPORTS AND ACTIVITIES (SAFETY)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bishop.]

3.48 a.m.

Mr. John Cordle: In spite of the very late hour, I am still of the opinion that the subject I wish to discuss on the Adjournment is worth raising. I am very glad indeed to have this opportunity to draw attention to a grave and tragic problem which now demands a real plan of action from both the Government and local authorities. Representing as I do a seaside constituency, I know that every summer brings its toll of drowning tragedies and incidents, in which brave men and women risk their lives to rescue yachtsmen or bathers who have got into difficulties.
Looked at from a national point of view, the figures of deaths from accidental drowning reveal a grim situation. In 1965 in England and Wales 801 people were drowned in inland and coastal waters, and of those, 252 were under 15 years of age. These figures do not include accidents or disasters to trawlers, coasters, or other larger merchant vessels. In addition, it has been estimated that 75 per cent. of all such deaths take place in rivers, lakes and other inland waters. These figures are truly appalling, each representing a personal and unnecessary tragedy which, by its very nature, takes a very large toll of young people.
The situation could well get worse. There is now an explosive growth in interest and participation in small boats and yachting. Schemes for new marinas abound, while more and more of our rivers and canals are being used for


leisure purposes, and when one looks at the success of the recent boat show, it would appear that in a few years' time the whole nation will be "messing about in boats".
In recent years, there has been a growing awareness of this problem and much good and much work has been done by local authorities and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents to come to grips with it. In 1962, R.O.S.P.A. set up the National Water Safety Committee and then appointed a full-time water safety organiser to plan and administer an all-the-year-round water safety campaign and to act as secretary of the National Water Safety Committee.
The terms of reference of this committee are straight forward and include the promotion of water safety by all educational means, to investigate causes and remedies in respect of drowning accidents and to make recommendations on matters of water safety policy. Its representatives include such diverse bodies as the Board of Trade, the Central Council of Physical Recreation, Thames Conservancy and the National Schools Sailing Association. At the same time, two very useful booklets were produced—"Water Safety Code" and "Safety Afloat".
Some 329 local authorities subscribe to the R.O.S.P.A. water safety scheme, including 20 county councils. Local authorities have certain powers to deal with water safety. In his circular 52/65, the Minister of Housing and Local Government urged them to look again at their areas and ensure that everything possible had been done to eliminate sources of danger, by fencing where appropriate, and the provision of life-saving appliances and life-saving patrols. The circular also referred to the importance of campaigning and told local authorities that they could make financial contributions to voluntary organisations undertaking such activities.
Another respect in which local authorities have a vital part in the prevention rather than cure form is in the provision of swimming baths. Only 40 per cent. of our children can swim and the figure for the adult population is probably about the same. Yet more than 600 local authorities, excluding rural districts, have no municipal indoor pool and I

am afraid that the present economic restrictions are inevitably curtailing the construction of new pools.
Last month, I understand, the Home Office was given Departmental responsibility for water safety problems affecting more than one Government Department, and I welcome the right hon. Lady who will be replying to my speech. What is in some doubt among those who are interested in and concerned about water safety is the precise rôle which the Home Office will play. I presume that it will act as the central Government co-ordinator and prodder in these matters and I hope that it will be equally concerned with inland waters as with coastal waters in view of the very high proportion of deaths which occur in inland waters. I look forward to a clear statement of responsibilities in the right hon. Lady's reply.
Having sketched in the background to the problem, I have a number of suggestions as to positive action and I hope that the Minister will be able to give a favourable answer to them. First, the fact that local authorities have to get Ministerial consent before making financial contributions to voluntary organisations which are undertaking educational campaigns in water safety must act as a brake on the authorities taking such action, and surely this could be left to the discretion of the authority concerned.
Secondly, following a resolution passed at the R.O.S.P.A. National Water Safety Conference last October, at which 250 local authority delegates were present, the Minister of Housing and Local Government is exploring the existing legislation with regard to water safety to see what changed requirements seem necessary and desirable. I am thinking particularly of the dangers in crowded waters where such activities as surfing and water ski-ing take place and the local authorities are powerless to control them or to reserve certain areas for bathing. I hope that the Home Office can provide a head of steam behind this exploration so that urgent action can be taken.
Thirdly, can the Home Office give more positive guidance and encouragement to local authorities to help them co-ordinate the various life-saving organisations in their areas and where necessary producing rescue plans for


surfing beaches and the like. I am sure this is a field in which R.O.S.P.A.'s National Water Safety Committee could give invaluable help.
Fourthly, local authorities have the power to provide standardised warning notices and adequate life-saving equipment and lifeguards and the Home Office might consider whether permissive powers are now adequate and perhaps minimum standards should be laid down in recognised inland and coastal resorts.
Fifthly, we need a really massive educational campaign using all modern means of communication and aimed particularly at young people. We spend £700,000 a year on road safety education and I do not grudge one penny of it, but the amount spent on water safety education is a minute fraction of this and most of it has been subsidised from R.O.S.P.A.'s limited income.
The National Water Safety Committee has been and is doing a first class job on a shoe-string budget, and I hope that R.O.S.P.A.'s request for an annual grant of £5,000 to cover this work will receive early favourable consideration. The City of Liverpool, alone has a plan to spend this amount on a "learn to swim" campaign this summer, and I am sure the Government will be prepared to help R.O.S.P.A. to co-ordinate this work at national level. I understand that the financial position is such that, if such a grant cannot be found, R.O.S.P.A. will have to curtail its water safety activities from March next and that would be disastrous to the progress that is being made.
Sixthly, would it be possible for the new enlarged police forces to have a full time water safety officer who could be invaluable in bath education and in giving advice to users and operators of aquatic recreational centres?
Finally, I commend to the Minister the excellent lifeguard training course run by the Atlantic College extra-mural department. There is surely ample scope here for similar courses to be held at technical colleges and universities and perhaps some link could be established between young people who pass such a course, or who pass the ordinary lifesaving course, and the voluntary lifeguard services, including the Royal Life Saving Corps now developing its Life Guarding Corps, the Surf Life Saving Association

of Great Britain, which operates on beaches, and the British Canoe Union Life Guarding Corps, so that their skills are not wasted.
It may not be too fanciful to envisage a truly national life guard service built upon such foundations which could play a very positive part in saving life both in coastal and inland waters, somewhat akin to the form of the present voluntary special constabulary.
I said that this was a grave and tragic problem. I welcome the Home Office's new responsibilities in this field and I hope that the Minister will be able to give very real support and encouragement to all those who are working to make our coasts and waterways safer.

4.0 a.m.

The Minister of State, Home Department (Miss Alice Bacon): I would like to thank the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Cordle) for letting me know in advance the points to which he was to refer. It has been of considerable help, particularly at this time in the morning. I fully appreciate the urgency with which the hon. Gentleman views the need for action on the various matters which he has mentioned. According to figures provided by the Royal Life Saving Society the total number of deaths from accidental drowning in 1965 was 622. These are the figures for the United Kingdom. Of these, 501, not 801 as the hon. Gentleman said, were in England and Wales and the Channel Isles. About one-quarter of these deaths were in coastal waters and the remainder in inland waters of various kinds, including rivers and streams, canals, lakes, ponds and reservoirs, as well as in the home. About one-third of these accidents involved children under the age of six.
Serious as these statistics are, it is some encouragement to find that the total for 1965 is less than in 1963, when there were 642 and 1961, when there were 732. Figures supplied by the General Register Office for England and Wales show that the number of accidental deaths from drowning in 1955 was even higher, namely, 984. Clearly all possible steps should be taken to maintain this downward trend. The problem is to decide how this can best be achieved. The hon. Member has rightly


pointed to the wide variety of Government Departments responsible for legislation bearing on different aspects of water safety, but the circumstances in which these tragic accidents occur are so varied that it is almost inevitable that different Departments should become interested in different aspects of the problem at different times.
The Ministry of Transport, as parent Department of the British Waterways Board, is indirectly concerned with water safety on the Board's inland waterways from time to time, but immediate responsibility for safety measures on and along the Board's canals rests with the Board. In some areas, active steps have been taken to educate the public about the danger of allowing children to play near canals, notably in Liverpool and Bootle, where after a series of tragic drownings in 1965, the local authorities set up a working party with the British Waterways Board to settle physical safety measures and distributed a warning leaflet to all householders near the canal.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government is generally responsible for legislation from which local authorities derive a number of their powers to deal with water safety problems. By Section 233 of the Public Health Act, 1936, local authorities may make bye-laws, subject to confirmation by the Minister, with respect to swimming baths and bathing pools.
The same Act enables local authorities to provide life-saving appliances at any place, whether or not these places are used for bathing. The local authorities may also incur expenditure on safety measures in respect of unfenced or inadequately fenced sources of danger away from the highway. This legislation enables local authorities to spend money on the provision of life-saving patrols on beaches and they are further empowered, subject to the Minister's consent in each case, to make financial contributions towards the expenses of voluntary organisations undertaking local activities for various purposes, including such activities as educating the public to the need to observe safety precautions when bathing. By way of support for the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents' National Water Safety Cam-

paign in 1965, local authorities were reminded of their various powers in a Circular from the Ministry, issued in July of that year.
The Department of Education and Science has powers under the Physical Training and Recreation Act, 1937, to make grants to voluntary bodies in aid of sport and physical recreation, but it is doubtful whether these powers would cover the provision of funds to voluntary bodies for water safety purposes. However, bodies such as the Amateur Swimming Association to which grants are made recognise the importance of the safety aspects of their activities.
Local education authorities are, of course, empowered and encouraged to provide instruction in swimming for school children. The Dolphin Trophy scheme, run under the auspices of the Royal Society's National Water Safety Committee, is designed to encourage swimming in primary schools.
The interest of the Home Office in water safety arises primarily from the function my right hon. Friend has of confirming certain byelaws under the Public Health Act, 1936 with respect to public bathing. These byelaws cover such matters as the provision of lifesaving appliances and other safety devices. The Home Secretary also confirms byelaws made by local authorities to control seaside pleasure boats for the purpose of preventing danger, obstruction or annoyance to persons bathing in the sea or using the seashore, and he is responsible also for certain other public health legislation relating to the control of pleasure boats.
The safety of those in boats is primarily the responsibility of the Board of Trade under the Merchant Shipping Acts. The Acts provide measures for the safety of ships of all kinds and those who sail in them. The hon. Gentleman knows what those various measures are.
Pleasure yachts of less than 45 feet in length which carry 12 or fewer passengers are not at present covered by statutory regulations requiring the provision of lifesaving and other appliances, but the Board of Trade has set up a working group representing all interests to recommend what appliances small craft not covered by the regulations ought to carry. Vessels carrying 12 or fewer passengers for payment or which are let on hire may, as I


have already said, be controlled by local authorities, which may also regulate the speed and navigation of coastwise boats of any size.
The Board of Trade wrote on 12th January, 1967, to all local authorities and harbour and river authorities inviting their co-operation in enforcing the Board's regulations for vessels requiring passenger certificates and reminding them of the Dowers they themselves can exercise. Guidance was given also on the kinds of conditions the authorities may consider it desirable to impose.
Against this background of various responsibilities, I appreciate that there has been some anxiety among local authorities and voluntary bodies about the apparent absence of any one Department to take responsibility for and to co-ordinate matters relating to water safety as a whole and not simply to specific aspects of the subject.
One matter in particular which brought this difficulty sharply into focus was the application made by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents to more than one Government Department for an Exchequer grant to help in its water safety activities. Following recent discussions, it has been agreed that the Home Office should deal with this application on behalf of the central Government, and it has been agreed also that the Home Office will deal with safety problems which are not specifically the concern of other Departments or which call for co-ordination between Departments.
I was glad to hear the hon. Gentleman say that he was pleased that this had gone to the Home Office. Speaking personally, I should have thought that the Home Office could probably have given away a few of its responsibilities rather than take on others, but this is something which we willingly undertake, and we shall do our best to see that it is carried out.
There is no question of the Home Office assuming any of the statutory functions of other Departments, but I hope that the working arrangements I have described will facilitate any necessary approach to the Government on water safety problems.
My Department has already begun work on its new responsibilities. Two

discussions have been held with the Royal Society on the subject of water safety generally as well as on their application for a grant. I recognise the valuable work undertaken by the Royal Society since 1962, but there are a number of matters which still need to be considered before we can reach any firm decision on their application for a Government grant.
In particular, we should like to know more about the views of local authorities. We propose to meet the local authority associations to discuss with them, for example, whether they consider the existing powers of local authorities to be adequate; whether they think the Government should intervene in the organisation of local water safety rescue service; and whether publicity should be centrally organised. We should also like to find out precisely how far local authorities themselves are prepared to contribute towards the cost of publicity and other water safety services. It was about matters of this kind that concern was expressed at the meeting of the National Water Safety Conference held last October, and to which the hon. Member has made reference again tonight. We shall pursue these various lines of inquiry as soon as we can.
I should now like to comment briefly on certain other matters which the hon. Gentleman has raised. The suggestion that local authorities who wish to make contributions to voluntary organisations should be relieved of the necessity of seeking ministerial sanction in each case has, I understand, already been raised and is being considered by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government.
I understand, too, that agreement on a national colour code for beach warning signs is also in prospect and that the Ministry are considering whether to issue a circular endorsing the code.
The hon. Member's suggestion that each police force should appoint a full-time water safety officer to educate and give advice to users and operators of aquatic recreational centres has its attractions, but I am sure he will appreciate that there must be many demands on police manpower, and we must give overriding priority to the war against crime and not use police officers for work which can properly be done by civilians. The police are always prepared to give advice


and assistance as far as is appropriate to their resources and responsibilities, but it would not be right to expect each force to appoint a full-time water safety officer.
I shall consider what the hon. Gentleman has said about lifeguard training and the possibility of a national lifeguard service.
In reviewing, for the purpose of this debate, the action already taken by the local authorities, voluntary organisations and central Government Departments, I have been impressed by all that is being done in the interests of water safety in its many aspects. I must not forget to

mention the part played by others, including the police, fire, coastguard and lighthouse services and by the armed forces. We shall certainly consider, in consultation with all concerned, whether any further measures are necessary to strengthen and improve the excellent work which is already being done in this connection.
I have taken careful note of the suggestions made in the course of this useful debate we have had today, and we will do everything possible to deal with the various points raised.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes past Four o'clock a.m.